Case 9.17: The self-help group and the flour

Difficulty: Hard
Syllabus point: 7: ethical dilemma: right versus right
Values and laws tested: Children's health and safety against livelihood and compassion; proportionality, fairness; Articles 21 and 47 (nutrition and public health as a primary duty of the State); the National Food Security Act 2013 (children's nutrition entitlements, general mention); food-safety standards (general mention)

Illustrative exampleThe self-help group and the flour

Lakshmi is a District Programme Officer in a district of Rajasthan, and the supply of supplementary nutrition to the district's anganwadis is under her. A self-help group of twelve women has supplied flour to the anganwadis for several months. Many of the women are widows or from poor families, and this is their main income. In a routine sample test one batch of the flour shows high moisture and insects, a failure against the standard. Flour from that batch has already gone to some anganwadis; there is also a report that a few children complained of stomach ache, but the cause is not clear. The group's leader says in tears, "Damp came into the godown in the rains, it happened by mistake. If the contract is cancelled we are all destitute." One officer says, "Blacklist the group for ever." Another says, "It is the first time, let it go."

Stakeholders: anganwadi children and their families (the weakest party), the twelve women of the group, anganwadi workers, the department, the testing laboratory, Lakshmi.
Issue: children's health and safety against the women's livelihood and compassion. Both sides are right, so a proportionate and phased solution is needed.
Options: A. Blacklist the group for ever (safety is strict; but punishment beyond proportion for a first error, the women's livelihood ends, and the way to improve is closed). B. Treat it as a first time and let the batch run, doing nothing (compassion; but risk to children and neglect of the standard). C. Stop and recall that batch at once, have affected children examined and treated, keep nutrition going from an alternative supply, give the group a written notice, training in storage and hygiene and a fresh sample test, and take severe action only on repetition (more work; but the children are safe and the women get a chance).
Best: C. Article 47 makes nutrition and public health a primary duty of the State, and Article 21 carries health and dignity of life; the principle of proportionality says punishment should match the fault.

Lesson

Action: Short term: recall the batch, a medical check of the children, open information to families and anganwadi workers, notice, alternative supply. Long term: regular quality checks and training for suppliers, storage support, public notice of standards, termination of the contract only for repeated failure.

Practice Questions

Practice questionabout 100 words

(10 marks, 100 words) What should Lakshmi do? Solve with the five-step card.

Model answer

The weakest stakeholders are the anganwadi children; the group's women, workers and the department are involved too. The issue is the children's safety against the women's livelihood; both are right. I have three routes: blacklist for ever, do nothing, or stop the batch at once and improve in stages. The first is beyond proportion; the second risks the children. I choose the third, because Article 47 makes nutrition a primary duty of the State and punishment must stay proportionate. I would recall the batch, have the children examined, and give the group a notice and training. Long term I would keep regular quality checks.

Practice questionabout 50 words

(5 marks, 50 words) Explain the "right versus right" dilemma in this case.

Model answer

In a dilemma two values are both right; so safety first at once, then compassion and a chance to improve.

Practice questionabout 50 words

(5 marks, 50 words) Suggest long-term measures for the quality of nutrition supply.

Model answer

Regular checks, training, storage support, public standards, firmness on repetition.