The Scholarship and the False Certificate
A school scholarship committee in Patna has 10 applications and 3 seats. Meera, ranked fourth on the merit list, submits an income certificate stating her father earns 1,20,000 rupees a year. The committee later learns the actual income is 1,60,000 rupees; the difference of 40,000 rupees places her above the eligibility ceiling. Meera says her father's shop was closed for two months after the flood, that her mother is ill, and that she needed the scholarship to continue. Committee member A says: 'She lied on an official form. Reject her; Kant's categorical imperative forbids treating the rule as optional.' Member B says: 'Admit her; the 30,000-rupee scholarship will do more good for her than for the fourth-ranked replacement, whose family is better off.' The committee has one week and must publish reasons.
1. Analyse A's Kantian argument and B's utilitarian argument: what each would need to show, and where each is vulnerable.
Read the worked answer
Kantian: A must show that Meera's maxim-'falsify an income certificate when need is great'-cannot be universalized. If universalized, income certificates would lose their function and the scholarship rule would be defeated; so the lie treats the rule and other applicants merely as means. A's argument is strong on the duty of truthfulness, but Kantian ethics also requires attention to Meera's dignity and to the conditions that made the lie tempting; it does not require humiliation. Utilitarian: B must show that admitting Meera produces more net good than rejecting her. That requires comparing harms: the replacement's loss, the precedent of dishonesty, the school's trust, and Meera's gain. B's claim is plausible but not proven by the single fact that Meera is worse off; the precedent may encourage future fraud.
2. Apply one Indian ethical concept (satya, dharma, ahimsa, or nishkama karma) to Meera's case; does it support rejection, admission, or a third option?
Read the worked answer
Satya, truthfulness, would condemn the false certificate; but satya is not mere literal accuracy-it is speech that promotes good without unnecessary harm. Meera's lie harms the rule and other applicants, so satya supports rejection or at least full disclosure. Dharma as duty would require the committee to consider both justice and compassion; ahimsa might favour a lesser punishment if rejection would end her education. Nishkama karma would ask the committee to act without favouritism or anger, not to reward need by breaking the rule. A third option is plausible: deny the scholarship but offer emergency aid or a fee waiver from a separate fund.
3. Recommend a decision with a rule that could be universalized, and explain how to handle the remaining applicants.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: reject the scholarship on the false certificate, but publish a clear rule and refer Meera to a discretionary hardship fund. The universalizable rule is: 'Applications containing materially false information are disqualified; genuine hardship is handled by a separate transparent process.' This treats similar cases alike, preserves the scholarship's integrity, and does not abandon compassion. The committee should also correct the record and give Meera a hearing, because procedural fairness matters. The remaining applicants should be ranked on verified merit and need, not on the basis of who tells the most sympathetic story.