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)

Introduction 

Maya faces a classic dilemma between personal safety and public duty. Her situation  exemplifies the challenges young civil servants encounter when confronting entrenched  political corruption in critical welfare programs.  

Body 

Stakeholders in this Case Study

  a. Competing Ethical Obligations  

Maya must navigate multiple conflicting duties that create moral complexity. 

  1. Constitutional Duty vs. Personal Safety: Her oath of office under Article 311 requires  serving public interest, but threats to family safety create legitimate personal  concerns.
  2. Professional Integrity vs. Career Survival: Exposing corruption upholds civil service  ethics but risks career destruction and professional isolation.
  3. Beneficiary Welfare vs. Institutional Stability: Protecting drought-affected farmers  conflicts with maintaining working relationships with senior officials.
  4. Legal Compliance vs. Political Pragmatism: Following the law requires action against  the MLA, but political realities suggest compromise might be necessary.
  5. Immediate Consequences vs. Long-term Precedent: Remaining silent provides short term safety but establishes dangerous precedents for future corruption.
  6. Individual Conscience vs. Systemic Pressure: Her personal ethical standards conflict  with the corrupt ecosystem she has inherited.

b. Combating Corruption While Ensuring Safety  

Maya must adopt a strategic approach that balances effectiveness with personal protection. 

  1. Document Everything Systematically: Create detailed records of corruption evidence,  threats, and meetings, storing them securely with trusted individuals outside the  district. 
  2. Build Support Networks: Cultivate relationships with honest officers, civil society  activists, and media personnel who can provide protection and amplify concerns.
  3. Utilize Multiple Reporting Channels: Simultaneously approach the Chief Secretary,  Central Vigilance Commission, CAG, and Anti-Corruption Bureau to prevent  suppression.  
  4. Invoke Constitutional Protections: Use Article 311 provisions for civil servant  protection and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal if necessary. 
  5. Engage Media Strategically: Collaborate with investigative journalists to expose  corruption while maintaining plausible deniability for personal safety. 
  6. Family Security Measures: Relocate family temporarily and inform police authorities  about threats for protection.  

c. Systemic Reforms for Civil Servant Protection  

Comprehensive reforms are essential to shield honest officers from political interference. 

  1. Fixed Tenure Security: Implement the Civil Services Board model ensuring minimum  2-year postings for district-level officers, preventing arbitrary transfers. 
  2. Independent Grievance Redressal: Establish autonomous bodies like the Central  Administrative Tribunal at state levels for quick resolution of transfer and harassment  cases.  
  3. Whistleblower Protection Enhancement: Strengthen the Whistleblower Protection  Act, 2014 with witness protection programs and financial support for affected officers. 
  4. Performance-Based Evaluation: Replace subjective assessments with objective  metrics, reducing scope for political manipulation of Annual Confidential Reports  (ACRs).  
  5. Institutional Backing: Create Civil Services Protection Authority with retired judges  and senior officers to investigate harassment cases and recommend action. 
  6. Legal Immunity Provisions: Provide statutory protection for officers taking decisions  in public interest, similar to provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
  7. Political Executive Accountability: Strengthen Article 164 provisions requiring  ministers to face consequences for pressuring civil servants.  

Conclusion 

Maya should prioritize public interest while taking calculated steps to ensure personal safety.  Systemic reforms are crucial to create an environment where honest civil servants can  function without fear of political retribution. 

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