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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
