Day 34 – Q.2.Maya Patel, a young IAS officer, has been posted as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in Bharatpur, a drought-affected district in Rajasthan. The region has been experiencing severe water scarcity for the past three years, leading to massive crop failures and farmer suicides. The state government has allocated ₹500 crores for drought relief, including water tanker distribution, employment generation under MGNREGA, and compensation to affected farmers. Maya discovers that the local MLA, Vikram Singh, who belongs to the ruling party, has been systematically diverting drought relief funds to his construction business through shell companies.  Additionally, water tankers meant for remote villages are being redirected to urban areas where the MLA has business interests. When Maya investigates further, she finds that several senior district officials are complicit in this scheme, receiving kickbacks for their silence. The MLA learns about Maya’s investigation and invites her for a ‘friendly discussion.’ He offers her a substantial bribe and a lucrative posting in the state capital. When she refuses, he threatens to have her transferred to a remote tribal area and warns that her family’s safety could be at risk. He also argues that his construction projects are creating employment and contributing to the region’s long-term development, claiming that a ‘small compromise’ would benefit everyone.  Maya realizes that taking action against such a powerful political figure could end her career and potentially endanger her family, while remaining silent would perpetuate the suffering of thousands of drought-affected farmers.  Questions What are the competing ethical obligations Maya faces in this situation?  How can she effectively combat corruption while ensuring her personal safety and career security?  What systemic reforms are needed to protect honest civil servants from political interference and intimidation?  (250 words, 20 marks)

  • IASbaba
  • July 12, 2025
  • 0
Ethics Theory, TLP-UPSC Mains Answer Writing
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Q.2.Maya Patel, a young IAS officer, has been posted as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) in Bharatpur, a drought-affected district in Rajasthan. The region has been experiencing severe water scarcity for the past three years, leading to massive crop failures and farmer suicides. The state government has allocated ₹500 crores for drought relief, including water tanker distribution, employment generation under MGNREGA, and compensation to affected farmers. Maya discovers that the local MLA, Vikram Singh, who belongs to the ruling party, has been systematically diverting drought relief funds to his construction business through shell companies. 

Additionally, water tankers meant for remote villages are being redirected to urban areas where the MLA has business interests. When Maya investigates further, she finds that several senior district officials are complicit in this scheme, receiving kickbacks for their silence. The MLA learns about Maya’s investigation and invites her for a ‘friendly discussion.’ He offers her a substantial bribe and a lucrative posting in the state capital. When she refuses, he threatens to have her transferred to a remote tribal area and warns that her family’s safety could be at risk. He also argues that his construction projects are creating employment and contributing to the region’s long-term development, claiming that a ‘small compromise’ would benefit everyone. 

Maya realizes that taking action against such a powerful political figure could end her career and potentially endanger her family, while remaining silent would perpetuate the suffering of thousands of drought-affected farmers. 

 

Questions

  1. What are the competing ethical obligations Maya faces in this situation? 
  2. How can she effectively combat corruption while ensuring her personal safety and career security? 
  3. What systemic reforms are needed to protect honest civil servants from political interference and intimidation?  (250 words, 20 marks)

 

Related Posts :
Day 34 – Q. 1.Dr. Priya Sharma, a senior scientist at the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), has been leading a critical research project on developing an affordable COVID-19 vaccine for rural populations. After 18 months of dedicated work, her team is on the verge of a major breakthrough. However, she discovers that her immediate supervisor, Dr. Rajan Kumar, has been secretly sharing confidential research data with a multinational pharmaceutical company in exchange for substantial personal financial gains.  When Dr. Sharma confronts Dr. Kumar, he threatens to have her removed from the project and warns that exposing him would jeopardize the entire research initiative, potentially delaying the vaccine by years. He argues that the partnership with the multinational company would actually accelerate the vaccine’s development and global distribution, ultimately serving the greater good. Dr. Kumar also reminds her that he has significant influence over her career progression and research funding.  Dr. Sharma is torn between her professional integrity and the potential consequences of whistleblowing. She knows that exposing the misconduct might lead to project delays, affecting millions of vulnerable people awaiting the vaccine. Simultaneously, she is aware that remaining silent would compromise scientific ethics and reward corrupt practices within the research establishment. Questions   What are the key ethical dilemmas Dr. Sharma faces in this situation? How should she balance her professional duty with potential consequences for public welfare?  What institutional mechanisms should be in place to prevent such conflicts of interest in scientific research?  (250 words, 20 Marks)
Read More
Day 34 – Q. 3. Rajesh Gupta, a Senior Police Superintendent in Mumbai, receives credible intelligence about a major terrorist attack planned for the upcoming Ganesh festival, which attracts millions of devotees. The intelligence suggests that the attack will target one of the main pandals in a densely populated area. However, the information comes from an undercover informant who has infiltrated a terrorist cell, and revealing this intelligence publicly would compromise the informant’s identity and potentially lead to his execution.  Rajesh faces a critical decision: he can either evacuate the area and cancel the festival, which would save lives but cause massive economic losses, disappoint millions of devotees, and potentially expose his informant; or he can maintain secrecy and deploy covert security measures, which would protect the informant but might not be sufficient to prevent the attack entirely. The Chief Minister, under pressure from religious organizations and business associations, insists that the festival must proceed as planned to avoid communal tensions and economic disruption. The festival has significant religious and cultural importance for the Hindu community, and canceling it could be seen as giving in to terrorist threats.  However, Rajesh knows that if the attack succeeds, he will be held responsible for the loss of innocent lives. Adding to the complexity, Rajesh discovers that some of his junior officers may have been compromised by the terrorist network, making it difficult to trust his own team with sensitive operational details. Questions What are the different courses of action available to Rajesh, and what are the ethical implications of each?  What course of action balances religious sentiments, public safety, and operational security in his decision-making?  What ethical frameworks should guide law enforcement officers when dealing with such high-stakes security situations? (250 words, 20 marks)
Read More

Search now.....

Sign Up To Receive Regular Updates