Day 33 – Q. 2. A massive fire at the official residence of a sitting High Court judge uncovers bundles of charred currency notes amounting to several crores. Preliminary investigations suggest a serious case of financial misconduct, triggering nationwide outrage. A Supreme Court-appointed panel recommends initiating impeachment proceedings, putting the spotlight squarely on the integrity of the higher judiciary. This incident has sparked a fierce debate. While the legal community defends the sanctity and independence of the judiciary as essential to democracy, civil society, media, and common citizens demand immediate action and structural reforms to prevent such breaches of public trust. Many view this as a symptom of a deeper systemic issue, not merely an isolated moral failure. The Ministry of Law and Justice is now under pressure to institutionalize a credible framework that ensures accountability while preserving the independence of judges. As a senior bureaucrat, your role involves reconciling competing concerns: respecting judicial autonomy as guaranteed under the Constitution while reinforcing mechanisms of integrity, transparency, and public confidence. Questions What ethical values and constitutional principles are at stake in this situation? How can the judiciary be held accountable without undermining its independence? As a senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Law and Justice, what should be your course of action to address this issue institutionally and ethically? (250 words, 20 marks)

  • IASbaba
  • July 11, 2025
  • 0
Ethics Theory, TLP-UPSC Mains Answer Writing
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Q. 2. A massive fire at the official residence of a sitting High Court judge uncovers bundles of charred currency notes amounting to several crores. Preliminary investigations suggest a serious case of financial misconduct, triggering nationwide outrage. A Supreme Court-appointed panel recommends initiating impeachment proceedings, putting the spotlight squarely on the integrity of the higher judiciary.

 

This incident has sparked a fierce debate. While the legal community defends the sanctity and independence of the judiciary as essential to democracy, civil society, media, and common citizens demand immediate action and structural reforms to prevent such breaches of public trust. Many view this as a symptom of a deeper systemic issue, not merely an isolated moral failure.

 

The Ministry of Law and Justice is now under pressure to institutionalize a credible framework that ensures accountability while preserving the independence of judges. As a senior bureaucrat, your role involves reconciling competing concerns: respecting judicial autonomy as guaranteed under the Constitution while reinforcing mechanisms of integrity, transparency, and public confidence.

Questions

 

  1. What ethical values and constitutional principles are at stake in this situation?
  2. How can the judiciary be held accountable without undermining its independence?
  3. As a senior bureaucrat in the Ministry of Law and Justice, what should be your course of action to address this issue institutionally and ethically? (250 words, 20 marks)

Introduction 

A recent incident involving a sitting High Court judge has raised serious concerns about  judicial accountability. While maintaining the independence of the judiciary remains  paramount, it is equally important to strengthen institutional mechanisms that uphold public  trust, transparency, and constitutional integrity. 

Body 

a. Ethical Values and Constitutional Principles at Stake  

This situation touches the heart of public ethics, constitutional morality, and institutional  trust.  

  1. Judicial Integrity: Judges must uphold the highest moral standards. Misconduct by a judge  violates the very foundation of the justice system.  
  2. Rule of Law (Article 14): Corruption in the judiciary erodes the idea that no one is above  the law, a basic feature of the Constitution.  
  3. Separation of Powers (Articles 50 and 121): While judicial independence must be  preserved, unchecked power without accountability is dangerous.  
  4. Public Confidence: Faith in the judiciary is essential for democratic legitimacy. Scandals  damage trust in justice as a whole.  
  5. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Judges should act only in ways they expect others to act  universally. Corruption violates this basic moral duty.  
  6. Constitutional Morality: As per Dr. Ambedkar, constitutional morality requires that  institutions function within ethical boundaries, not just legality. 

b. Ensuring Judicial Accountability Without Undermining Independence  

Balancing fairness and scrutiny is key to a credible justice system.

  1. Due Process (Article 124(4)): Any action must follow legal procedures like those under the  Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, ensuring a fair hearing.  
  2. Internal Peer Accountability: The judiciary can lead internal checks through in-house  procedures and Chief Justices’ oversight.  
  3. Transparency in Collegium: Making appointments and promotions open to review can  filter out unethical candidates.  
  4. Strengthening Impeachment Process: Retain the high bar but improve timelines and  procedure for action on serious misconduct.  
  5. Code of Ethics and Asset Disclosure: Require judges to follow a code of ethics and submit  annual declarations—confidential if needed.  
  6. Judicial Independence as a Means: Independence should protect honest functioning, not  be used as a shield for wrongdoing.  

c. Course of Action as a Senior Bureaucrat in the Ministry of Law and Justice 

As a senior bureaucrat, one must respond decisively, but in a balanced and constitutionally  sound manner.

  1. Initiate Inter-Ministerial Consultation: Coordinate with the judiciary, legal experts, and  civil society to frame consensus-based reforms that respect institutional boundaries. 
  2. Draft a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Revive and refine the earlier draft  legislation to include mechanisms like time-bound inquiries and an independent oversight  body.
  3. Propose a Judicial Complaints Authority: Recommend a statutory authority modeled on  the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, comprising retired judges and  independent members.  
  4. Policy Note on Asset Disclosure and Code of Conduct: Prepare a confidential draft policy  for mandatory asset declarations and adoption of a code of ethics for higher judiciary. 
  5. Build Parliamentary and Judicial Support: Engage key parliamentary committees and  judicial leadership through closed-door discussions to ensure political will and legal  feasibility.
  6. Public Assurance through Media Communication: Coordinate with the Press Information  Bureau (PIB) to release transparent yet respectful communication to restore public trust. 
  7. Benchmarking Global Best Practices: Include comparative models like the U.S. Judicial  Conference, Canada’s Judicial Council etc in the framework proposal.
  8. Submit a Time-bound Action Plan to the Minister: Prepare a phased roadmap with  deadlines, legal implications, and institutional safeguards, ensuring proactive rather than  reactive governance.

Conclusion 

This case demands a firm, lawful, and ethical response. As a senior bureaucrat, your course  of action must balance judicial independence with public accountability—ensuring  institutional integrity without politicization or executive overreach. 

Related Posts :
Day 33 – Q. 1. As an officer in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), you are part of a high-level panel tasked with reviewing the authenticity of reservation-related documents—such as those for SC, ST, OBC, EWS, and persons with disabilities—submitted by a number of civil servants at the time of their appointment. Recent audits have raised serious concerns regarding the legitimacy of some of these certificates. Many of the individuals under scrutiny have already been serving in various government departments for 5 to 10 years, with overall satisfactory performance records and no major disciplinary issues. While legal action, including termination and prosecution, is being actively considered for those found guilty of submitting false documents, a parallel debate has emerged. Some experts and internal stakeholders argue that administrative leniency should be shown in cases where there was no clear malicious intent or where systemic lapses—such as inadequate verification mechanisms—enabled the breach. However, rightful candidates who were displaced due to the fraudulent use of reserved category certificates are now demanding justice and restoration of their lost opportunities. Civil society groups and public interest litigants are also adding pressure, urging the government to take decisive, transparent, and equitable action. In this context, the government must walk a tightrope—balancing the legal and moral imperative to uphold fairness in public employment with the pragmatic challenges of dealing with long-serving officials who may have been products of an administrative failure. Questions What are the ethical concerns involved in allowing or removing such officers from service? How can the principle of natural justice be upheld while ensuring fairness to genuine beneficiaries? What measures would you suggest to strengthen the verification of eligibility claims in public service recruitment.  (250 words, 20 Marks)
Read More
Day 33 – Q. 3. Mr. Raghav Verma, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, has recently been posted as the District Collector of Lakshmipur, a backward but ecologically sensitive district in central India. A powerful conglomerate has proposed setting up a large cement manufacturing unit in the region. The proposed project promises to generate over 4,000 jobs and improve local infrastructure, and has received political backing at the state level. However, environmental assessments conducted by a neutral research body raise serious concerns. The region falls within an elephant corridor and includes tribal villages dependent on forest-based livelihoods. The plant’s operations may lead to irreversible groundwater depletion and air pollution. Raghav receives unofficial calls from state-level officials urging him to push through the final clearance. Simultaneously, he is visited by tribal elders and local activists who plead with him to protect their land and forests. Raghav is caught between the lure of rapid development, intense political pressure, and the ethical responsibility to safeguard the environment and the rights of vulnerable communities. Questions What are the different options available to Raghav in this situation? What are the ethical implications of each option? In your opinion, what should Raghav do? Justify your answer with suitable ethical reasoning.  How can public servants ethically balance economic development with sustainable governance in such high-pressure roles? (250 words, 20 marks)
Read More

Search now.....

Sign Up To Receive Regular Updates