A municipal commissioner is pressured by elected representatives to withdraw a public-awareness campaign because of the religion of its ambassador. What ethical issues arise, and what should the officer do?

In November 2026, the Bombay High Court called it a "petty mindset" when politicians objected, on religious grounds, to actor Dia Mirza fronting a BMC campaign for an eco-friendly Deepavali. The court ordered the video restored [1]. The case shows a familiar conflict: constitutional duty against political pressure. An officer must side with the Constitution.

Stakeholders: commissioner, elected representatives, ambassador, citizens (public health), the institution's credibility.

Ethical issues involved

• Impartiality vs. identity politics: Removing an ambassador because of her faith fails the State's duty of religious neutrality in secular work, laid down in S.R. Bommai (1994) [2].
• Equality and non-arbitrariness: The Supreme Court treats secularism as a facet of equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16 [3]. A takedown based on religion is therefore discrimination, not a matter of preference.
• Constitutional vs. popular morality: Giving in to majoritarian sentiment puts popular approval above constitutional values.
• Accountability vs. political interference: Representatives may legitimately question a campaign's merits or cost, but not the identity of its messenger.
• Public interest: "Everyone breathes air" [1]. The Supreme Court has limited even Delhi-NCR to licensed green crackers [4], so dropping a working behaviour-change tool harms public health.
• Courage of conviction and integrity: Complying quietly to avoid a transfer would be moral cowardice, and it would set a precedent that any campaign can be vetoed on communal grounds.

What the officer should do

1. Refuse politely and firmly. Explain that selection rests on merit and message, not religion.
2. Insist on written instructions. Record the reasons for rejecting an identity-based demand. This protects both the officer and the institution.
3. Address genuine concerns. Widen the campaign to all festivals and pollution sources, which removes any perception of selective targeting.
4. Escalate if needed. Brief the state Urban Development Department and seek legal opinion. Comply only with lawful directions.
5. Reform the system. Frame written criteria for selecting and removing ambassadors: removal only for conduct linked to the message, never for identity.
6. Communicate through data. Rest the campaign on CPCB air-quality evidence, not on any community.

In short, the commissioner must protect secular neutrality, equal treatment and public health while still respecting legitimate democratic oversight. Acting with impartiality, transparency and courage, as the Nolan Principles and Second ARC's ethics agenda envisage, keeps the campaign alive and strengthens the Preamble's promise of fraternity.