UPSC Ethics Simplified: IAS Tukaram Mundhe | Beyond the officer, study the ethical issues

Looking at the actions of IAS Tukaram Mundhe through the ethical lens

Navi Mumbai’s Tukaram Mundhe won the Excellence in Governance Award 2019 in the Technology Implementation category. (Express photo/Abhinav Saha)

Let us now look at IAS officer Tukaram Mundhe, who has been in the news for his efforts to ensure that consumers receive clean and high-quality food.

🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for August 2026. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨

His decision-making can be examined through multiple ethical frameworks. From the perspective of utilitarianism, an action is considered ethical when it produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Ensuring the quality and safety of food can therefore be viewed as an act that seeks to maximise public welfare.

His actions can also be examined through the lens of Kantian ethics, which places emphasis on duty. The Kantian model of ethical decision-making is based on the idea that individuals have a moral duty to act according to principles that can be universally applied.

Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative asks individuals to act only according to principles that they could reasonably will to become universal laws. It also emphasises treating every human being as an end in themselves rather than merely as a means.

Public administration, therefore, cannot be reduced to rules and procedures alone. It also involves recognising the dignity and welfare of the people whom the state is expected to serve.

In this context, the actions of Tukaram Mundhe can be viewed through the virtues of courage, integrity, responsibility and commitment to public welfare. The willingness to act against wrongdoing, even when it may create personal or professional difficulties, raises an important question for civil servants: Is doing the right thing merely a duty, or does it require moral courage?

The three gunas and ethical decision-making

Indian philosophical traditions also provide interesting ways of examining human behaviour and decision-making. The Bhagavad Gita discusses three gunas, or qualities of human nature: sattva, rajas and tamas.

Sattva is associated with purity, knowledge, balance and a sense of higher purpose. Rajas is associated with desire, activity, ambition and attachment to outcomes. Tamas, on the other hand, is associated with inertia, ignorance and resistance to change.

In public administration, these concepts can provide an ethical lens through which decision-making may be examined.

An individual influenced by tamas may be inclined towards inaction and maintaining the status quo. Such an approach can result in decisions that require the least effort and cause the least personal discomfort. But administrative inaction can have significant consequences for society.

The ethical question, therefore, is not simply whether an officer has committed an act of wrongdoing. It is also whether an officer has failed to act when action was necessary. What, then, should we make of situations in which unsafe or unhygienic practices continue for years before an officer intervenes? Does administrative inertia reflect an absence of moral courage? Could elements of rajas also influence administrative behaviour?

Rajas is associated with desire, ambition and attachment to personal interests. If personal benefit, career advancement or fear of consequences begins to dominate decision-making, the relationship between the civil servant and the citizen can become distorted.

In contrast, sattva represents balance, knowledge and a commitment to a larger purpose. A person guided by sattva is expected to act with a concern for the welfare of others and to place public interest at the centre of decision-making.

From this perspective, the actions of Tukaram Mundhe can be examined through the lens of sattva, public service and moral courage. At the same time, it is important not to turn an individual officer into a larger-than-life hero. The very fact that an officer’s actions attract extraordinary attention should make us question why basic administrative responsibilities sometimes appear extraordinary in the first place.

From public servant to public figure

There is another dimension to the story of Tukaram Mundhe. His actions are not limited to administrative circles or newspaper reports. He is also widely discussed on television news and social media, including Instagram reels, where he is often portrayed as an “IAS Singham” or a symbol of the tough and honest officer.

There is nothing wrong with recognising an officer for courage and integrity. But should the story end with celebrating the individual?

Perhaps this is where we need to move from hero worship to institutional learning. If performing one’s basic administrative duties makes an officer a celebrity, it is worth asking why such conduct appears extraordinary in the first place.

The larger ethical question is therefore: Should good governance depend on exceptional individuals, or should institutions be designed so that integrity, accountability and public welfare become the norm? This distinction is important for an aspiring civil servant. The goal of public service should not be to become a celebrated officer, but to build systems that work even when the individual in charge changes.

Duty without attachment to the fruits of action

The Bhagavad Gita also speaks about performing one’s duty without attachment to the fruits of one’s actions.

This does not mean blindly performing one’s duties. Rather, it can be understood as acting with a sense of responsibility while maintaining ethical judgment and avoiding excessive attachment to personal rewards or outcomes.

For a civil servant, this raises an important ethical ideal: Can one remain committed to public welfare even when the decision may not provide immediate personal or professional benefits?

An officer who acts in the public interest despite the possibility of transfers, criticism or professional inconvenience demonstrates an important dimension of moral courage.

But this brings us to some fundamental questions.

Why do repeated cases of food adulteration and unsafe practices continue to emerge? What happens when an officer like Mundhe is transferred? What happens before such an officer arrives, and what happens after he leaves?

Should good governance depend on the exceptional courage of individual officers, or should institutions be designed in a way that makes ethical conduct the norm rather than the exception?

From individual virtue to institutional ethics

This is perhaps the most important lesson. Individual integrity matters. Moral courage matters. Public-spirited leadership matters. But a healthy governance system cannot depend solely on the virtues of individual officers. If a system functions well only when an exceptionally courageous officer is present, then the system itself needs introspection.

This brings us to Adam Smith’s famous observation:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

Smith’s larger argument reminds us that institutions and systems should be designed in a manner where desirable outcomes do not depend entirely on individual benevolence. Similarly, good governance should not depend only on whether an individual civil servant happens to be exceptionally honest, courageous or committed.

The ultimate ethical challenge for public administration is therefore not merely to produce more heroic officers, but to build institutions where integrity, accountability, transparency and public welfare become the normal way of functioning. Perhaps the real measure of good governance is not how many heroes a system produces, but how little it needs heroes to function well.

(The writer is the author of ‘Being Good’, ‘Aaiye, Insaan Banaen’, ‘Kyon’ and ‘Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness’. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to UPSC, SAARC countries, Civil services Academy, National Centre for Good Governance, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Competition Commission of India (CCI), National Judicial Academy, etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (concepts and caselets) fortnightly.)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on UPSC section of The Indian Express on Instagram and X.

For your queries and suggestions write at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com

PREVIOUS ARTICLES ON UPSC ETHICS SIMPLIFIED:

Can development come at the cost of safety?

Can fear of punishment create an ethical society?

CJP protest: Why responses to protests are an ethics case study

Railway linen theft : A Case Study in everyday ethics

Can ethics stop the next fire tragedy?

How can India’s civil services and governance rebuild Gen Z’s trust?