Content

1. Surveillance apps in welfare, snake oil for accountability
2. A black Friday for aviation safety in India

Surveillance apps in welfare, snake oil for accountability

Why in News?

• July 2025 circular of the Union Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) officially acknowledged large-scale misuse and manipulation of the NMMS app in MGNREGA.
• Despite this failure, the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD) made Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) mandatory for Take Home Rations (THR) under Poshan Tracker.
• Renewed policy debate on tech-based surveillance for accountability in welfare delivery.
• Linked to rising concerns on:
  • Exclusion errors
  • Privacy violations
  • Worker demotivation
  • Digital authoritarianism in welfare governance

Relevance

GS II (Governance & Social Justice)

• Digital governance and welfare delivery
• Role of technology in public service delivery
• Exclusion errors in PDS, MGNREGA, ICDS
• Accountability vs responsibility in administration
• Cooperative federalism at the grassroots
• Institutional trust and state–citizen relations

GS IV (Ethics in Public Administration)

• Accountability vs moral responsibility
• Means–ends inversion in governance
• Ethics of care vs algorithmic compliance
• Surveillance ethics and human dignity
• Demoralisation of frontline workers

Practice Question

• “Digital surveillance has increasingly replaced administrative accountability in India’s welfare delivery system.” Critically examine with examples from MGNREGA and ICDS.(250 Words)

Core Concept: Accountability vs Responsibility

• Accountability
  • External enforcement: making people do what authorities want.
  • Based on surveillance, monitoring, threat of penalties.
• Responsibility
  • Internal motivation to act in public interest.
  • Emphasised by Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen (2025):
    • True governance reform requires norms, ethics, and intrinsic motivation, not only surveillance.

Evolution of Tech-Fixes for Accountability

1. Biometric Attendance (Early 2010s)

• Introduced to curb:
  • Absenteeism
  • Late arrival
  • Early exit
• RCT Evidence (Rajasthan):
  • Long-run attendance actually declined among government nurses.
• Jharkhand (Khunti Block):
  • Staff focused on marking biometrics, not on actually completing work.
• Structural Failure:
  • Output displaced by input monitoring.

2. Aadhaar-Based Biometric Authentication (ABBA) in PDS (2017)

• Objective: Prevent identity fraud in ration distribution.
• Consequences:
  • Exclusion of elderly, disabled, immobile persons
  • Dependence on neighbours disallowed.
  • Dealer manipulation: Full biometric authentication but short-weight rations (4.5 kg vs 5 kg).
• Result: “Pain without gain”
  • High transaction cost
  • No real corruption control

3. NMMS App in MGNREGA (2022)

• Requires:
  • Geo-tagged photographs of workers twice daily
• Intended Goal: Eliminate fake muster rolls.
• Ground Reality:
  • Uploading:
    • Random photographs
    • Photographs of photographs
    • Irrelevant jpeg files
• July 2025 MoRD Circular:
  • Lists 7 types of manipulation practices
• Government response:
  • 100% daily verification of all photos across Gram Panchayats → Administrative overload.

4. Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) in Poshan Tracker (THR)

• Applied to:
  • Pregnant women
  • Lactating mothers
  • Children
• Requires:
  • Live blinking photo for ration authentication
• Field Reality (Nuh, Haryana):
  • Connectivity issues
  • Crowd management failures
  • Angular Workers admit:
    • “Those who want to cheat will continue”

5. Surveillance on ANMs & Anganwadi Workers

• Mandatory:
  • Geo-tagged photos for:
    • Breastfeeding counselling
    • Home visits
• Perverse Incentives:
  • Photo without counselling → Safe
  • Counselling without photo → Punishable
• Andhra Pradesh Tribal Area Case:
  • ANM penalised for moving 300 metres to get network to upload data.
• Result:
  • Demoralisation of sincere workers
  • Shift from service to compliance

Structural Failures of Tech-Based Accountability

• Monitoring focuses on presence, not performance
• Corruption adapts faster than regulation
• Digital compliance replaces real service delivery
• Honest workers penalised; dishonest ones innovate
• Surveillance increases transaction time in welfare delivery

Six Major Systemic Harms Created by Tech-Fixes

1. Exclusion Errors
   1. PDS: elderly, disabled excluded due to biometric failure
   1. MGNREGA: workers excluded if NMMS photos fail to upload
2. Inefficiency
   1. PDS & THR distribution slows due to repeated authentication
3. New Corruption Channels
   1. Fake ABBA failures
   1. Fake NMMS uploads
   1. Brokered authentication
4. Privacy Violations
   1. Uploading photographs of breastfeeding mothers
   1. Facial data without meaningful consent
5. Identity Fraud
   1. Recycling old images
   1. Proxy photos
6. Worker Demotivation
   1. Surveillance-induced stress
   1. Punishment for network failures
   1. Loss of professional dignity

Political Economy Angle: Capture by Tech Vendors

• Massive public expenditure on:
  • Smartphones for frontline workers
  • e-POS machines
  • Servers, cloud storage
  • Data consumption
  • Authentication infrastructure
• Creation of:
  • Guaranteed captive markets for surveillance-tech firms
• Parallel drawn with:
  • Tobacco industry
  • Refined sugar industry
• Both:
  • Cultivated ignorance about harms to delay regulation

Conceptual Framework: Agnotology

• Introduced by Robert Proctor
• Meaning:
  • Systematic production of ignorance
  • Deliberate ignoring of known failures
• Applied here as:
  • Government acknowledges NMMS misuse
  • Yet expands FRT mandates
  • Indicates institutionalised wilful blindness

Governance Diagnosis

• India’s digital governance has shifted from:
  • Trust-based welfare → Surveillance-based welfare
• The state now assumes:
  • Citizens are default potential cheats
  • Frontline workers are default suspects
• This directly undermines:
  • Social capital
  • Institutional trust
  • Cooperative federalism at grassroots

Ethical & Constitutional Dimensions 

• Article 21: Right to dignity infringed by intrusive surveillance
• Data Protection Principles: Violated via mass biometric capture
• Ethics of Care: Reduced to algorithmic compliance
• Means–Ends Inversion:
  • Technology becomes the goal, welfare becomes secondary

Key Scholarly Insight

• Drèze–Sen Thesis (2025):
  • Accountability can enforce obedience.
  • Responsibility alone sustains ethical public service.
• Tech-fixes cannot:
  • Build integrity
  • Build empathy
  • Build service motivation

Conclusion

• Tech-based surveillance in welfare has:
  • High fiscal cost
  • Low governance return
  • Severe ethical violations
• It:
  • Does not eliminate corruption
  • Merely digitises corruption
• Without:
  • Work culture reform
  • Administrative leadership
  • Social norm transformation
    → Accountability mechanisms remain mechanical, brittle, and counterproductive.
• In this sense, tech-fixes for accountability function as policy “snake oil”.

A black Friday for aviation safety in India

 Why in News?

• December 5, 2025: After large-scale flight cancellations by IndiGo,
  • The Civil Aviation Minister placed Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules under abeyance.
  • The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) appealed to pilots to dilute compliance with FDTL.
• This move:
  • Suspended a safety regulation mandated by the judiciary.
  • Directly subordinated passenger safety to commercial continuity.
• Triggered a national debate on:
  • Crew fatigue
  • Regulatory capture
  • Weak aviation safety oversight in India

Relevance

GS Paper II (Polity & Governance)

• Regulatory capture and policy subversion
• Executive interference in independent regulators
• Judicial inconsistency and regulatory uncertainty
• Conflict of interest in aviation governance
• Right to Life (Article 21) and state obligation

GS Paper III (Infrastructure, Transport & Safety)

• Civil aviation safety standards
• Regulatory framework of DGCA & ICAO
• Impact of poor aviation governance on economic infrastructure
• Crew fatigue as a systemic safety risk
• Crisis management failure in transport sector

Practice Question

• “Regulatory capture weakens public safety in critical infrastructure sectors.” Analyse this statement in the context of India’s civil aviation sector.(250 Words)

 Core Issue in One Line

• Commercial interests of airlines overrode legally mandated aviation safety norms, creating systemic risk to pilots and passengers.

What is FDTL?

• Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) regulates:
  • Maximum flying hours
  • Duty periods
  • Mandatory rest hours for pilots and cabin crew
• Objective:
  • Prevent fatigue-induced human error, a leading global cause of air accidents.
• Issued as a Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) under DGCA’s regulatory powers.

Historical Background of Dilution

• 2007: DGCA issued a robust CAR on crew fatigue and rest.
• 2008:
  • Airline owners protested.
  • Ministry ordered DGCA to keep the CAR in abeyance.
• Bombay High Court (Writ Petition 1687 of 2008):
  • Condemned the move.
  • Observed:
    • “Safety of flights has been overlooked for protecting financial interests of a few operators.”
    • Pilot shortage must be addressed by reducing flights, not increasing duty hours.
• Irony:
  • The same court later upheld the Ministry’s dilution.
• Continuity of policy failure:
  • The same commercial-first mindset persists in 2025.

Immediate Cause of the 2025 Aviation Crisis

• New FDTL regulations were to come into force on November 1, 2025.
• Both:
  • IndiGo management, and
  • DGCA
• Knew the deadline for over one year.
• Yet:
  • Crew shortage was not addressed.
  • Mass flight cancellations followed.
• Result:
  • Thousands of stranded passengers
  • Only ticket refunds offered
  • No compensation for hotels, missed connections, or economic losses

Regulatory Loophole: CAR 2022 on Crew Strength

• DGCA CAR Series ‘C’ Part II Section 3 (April 19, 2022):
  • Minimum 3 sets of crew per aircraft.
• Actual safety requirement:
  • Domestic: Minimum 6 pilot sets per aircraft
  • Wide-body long-haul: 12 pilot sets per aircraft
• Airlines:
  • Legally complied with the minimum CAR,
  • But violated fatigue safety principles.
• Outcome:
  • Deliberate under-employment of crew
  • IndiGo identified as a major beneficiary of this dilution

Regulatory Failure: DGCA as a Captured Regulator

• DGCA actions on December 5, 2025:
  • Morning: Appeals to pilots to cooperate with airlines.
  • Afternoon: CAR on FDTL placed under abeyance by Ministry.
• Indicates:
  • Loss of regulatory autonomy
  • Political and corporate pressure overriding safety science
• Classic case of:
  • Regulatory capture
  • Where regulator serves industry, not public safety.

International Warning Ignored: ICAO Audit

• In 2006, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) audit recommended:
  • India must establish an independent civil aviation authority.
  • DGCA should not function as a department under Ministry control.
• 20 years later (2025):
  • India still lacks:
    • Independent aviation regulator
    • Functional safety firewall between government and airlines
• Result:
  • Airlines operate with impunity
  • DGCA acts as a puppet regulator

Safety Consequences & Accident Record

• Major crashes since 2010:
  • Mangaluru
  • Kozhikode
  • Ahmedabad (AI-171)
• Ahmedabad AI-171 crash investigation:
  • Findings allegedly delayed by the Ministry
• Despite repeated disasters:
  • No systemic reform of fatigue regulation
  • No accountability of airline owners
  • No institutional strengthening of DGCA

Key Ethical & Governance Failures

1. Violation of Right to Life (Article 21)

• Passenger and pilot safety compromised by:
  • Forced fatigue
  • Commercial scheduling pressure

2. Conflict of Interest

• Ministry acts as:
  • Promoter of aviation growth
  • And supposed safety guardian
• This dual role leads to systemic bias in favour of airlines.

3. Judicial Inconsistency

• Initial High Court protection of safety
• Later reversal enabling dilution
• Creates regulatory uncertainty and moral hazard

Political Economy of the Crisis

• Airlines maximise:
  • Aircraft utilisation
  • Revenue per crew
• Government prioritises:
  • Aviation sector optics
  • Stock market confidence
• Public safety becomes:
  • Externality transferred to passengers and pilots

Why This is a Structural, Not Episodic Failure ?

• Repeated pattern since 2007:
  • Safety CAR issued → Airlines protest → Ministry intervenes → DGCA dilutes
• Institutional lesson:
  • India’s aviation governance operates on commercial dominance, not safety primacy

International Norm vs Indian Practice

Final Governance Diagnosis

• Indian aviation currently operates in a state of:
  • Rule suspension in emergencies
  • Corporate-first policymaking
  • Weak institutional checks
• The December 5, 2025 actions:
  • Prove that aviation safety remains subordinate to airline profitability
  • Convert safety regulation into adjustable commercial tools

Conclusion

• The suspension of FDTL norms to rescue airline operations represents a dangerous shift from “safety as a constitutional obligation” to “safety as a negotiable cost”, validating long-standing ICAO warnings and exposing the structural fragility of India’s aviation governance.