GS 4 · Practice archive

GS Paper 4 practice questions for UPSC Mains 2026.

Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude — theory plus case studies.

20 Qs / 250 marks270 questionsModel outlines included

GS Paper 4 · Tips & tricks

GS-4 — values, dilemmas, and decisions — not lectures on ethics

Pair every ethical concept with a public-service application.Talk about integrity — but anchor it to a civil servant scenario or a real official action (T.N. Seshan, E. Sreedharan, Ashok Khemka).
Case studies need a 5-step structure.Identify the dilemma, list stakeholders, lay out 3 options with consequences, choose one with justification, and add a follow-up safeguard.
Use thinkers sparingly and accurately.One Aristotle, one Gandhi, one Ambedkar in an answer is enough — and quote what they actually said, not a paraphrase.
Don't moralise. Decide.The examiner wants a decision and the reasoning. Sitting on the fence loses marks even when the case is morally ambiguous.
For aptitude questions, behaviour matters more than feelings.When asked what you would do, focus on observable actions — communication, consultation, escalation — not internal states.

Q.120 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

One of the scientists working in the R & D laboratory of a major pharmaceutical company discovers that one of the company’s best selling veterinary drugs, B has the potential to cure a currently incurable liver disease that is prevalent in tribal areas. However, developing a variant of the drug suitable for human beings entailed a lot of research and development having a huge expenditure to the extent of ₹ 50 crores. It was unlikely that the company would recover the costs as the disease was rampant only in poverty-stricken area having very little market otherwise. If you were the CEO, then— (a) identify the various actions that you could take; (b) evaluate the pros and cons of each of your actions.

Subtopic: Case Study · corporate ethics and access to life-saving medicine

Show model answer outline

Brief facts → stakeholders → ethical issues → (a) available actions → (b) pros and cons of each → recommended course of action

Key points

Central conflict: fiduciary duty to shareholders vs the moral duty to save lives (profit vs human life).
Stakeholders: tribal patients (right to health), shareholders, employees/scientist, society, government.
Refusing outright is ethically indefensible; developing unilaterally risks breaching fiduciary duty.
Best-balanced option: public-private partnership sharing cost with government/ICMR, WHO and philanthropies.
Use tiered/differential pricing and voluntary licensing (or PSU manufacture) to keep the drug affordable.
Leverage mandatory CSR under Section 135, Companies Act 2013, to fund a neglected-disease cure.
Kantian lens: treat patients as ends, not merely as an unprofitable market.

Open full model answer →

Q.220 marks · 200w 20 min Hard

There is a disaster-prone State having frequent landslides, forest fires, cloudbursts, flash floods and earthquakes, etc. Some of these are seasonal and often unpredictable. The magnitude of the disaster is always unanticipated. During one of the seasons, a cloudburst caused devastating floods and landslides leading to high casualties. There was major damage to infrastructure like roads, bridges and power generating units. This led to more than 100000 pilgrims, tourists and other locals trapped across different routes and locations. The people trapped in your area of responsibility included senior citizens, patients in hospitals, women and children, hikers, tourists, ruling party’s regional president along with his family, additional chief secretary of the neighbouring State and prisoners in jail. As a civil services officer of the State, what would be the order in which you would rescue these people and why? Give justifications.

Subtopic: Case Study · disaster rescue prioritisation

Show model answer outline

Brief facts → guiding principle of triage → stakeholders/groups → order of rescue with justification → ethical anchors → recommended course

Key points

Governing principle: prioritise by vulnerability and urgency of threat to life, never by power or VIP status (Article 14).
Ethical basis: medical-style triage, worst-off and most vulnerable first; utilitarian (most lives) + protection of the weakest.
Order: (1) critical hospital patients & frail elderly; (2) women, children, sick/injured; (3) general public incl. VIPs as ordinary citizens; (4) prisoners with security.
VIPs (party president, ACS) get no preference, treated as ordinary citizens.
Prisoners are never abandoned, right to life (Article 21) is equal; they are sequenced only for armed-escort logistics.
Coordinate NDRF/SDRF, use local resources, keep the process transparent to resist VIP pressure, and document decisions.

Open full model answer →

Q.325 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are heading a district administration in a particular department. Your senior officer calls you from the State Headquarters and tells you that a plot in Rampur village is to have a building constructed on it for a school. A visit is scheduled during which he will visit the site along with the chief engineer and the senior architect. He wants you to check out all the papers relating to it and to ensure that the visit is properly arranged. You examine the file which relates to the period before you joined the department. The land was acquired from the local Panchayat at a nominal cost and the papers show that clearance certificates are available from the two of the three authorities who have to certify the site’s suitability. There is no certification by the architect available on file. You decide to visit Rampur to ensure that all is in order as stated on file. When you visit Rampur, you find that the plot under reference is part of Thakurgarh Fort and that the walls, ramparts, etc., are running across it. The fort is well away from the main village, therefore a school here will be a serious inconvenience for the children. However, the area near the village has potential to expand into a larger residential area. The development charges on the existing plot, at the fort, will be very high and the question of heritage site has not been addressed. Moreover, the Sarpanch, at the time of acquisition of the land, was a relative of your predecessor. The whole transaction appears to have been done with some vested interest. (a) List the likely vested interests of the concerned parties. (b) Some of the options for action available to you are listed below. Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the options: (i) You can await the visit of the superior officer and let him take a decision. (ii) You can seek his advice in writing or on phone. (iii) You can consult your predecessor/colleagues, etc., and then decide what to do. (iv) You can find out if any alternate plot can be got in exchange and then send a comprehensive written report. Can you suggest any other option with proper justification?

Subtopic: Case Study · land acquisition, heritage and vested interest

Show model answer outline

Brief facts → stakeholders → ethical issues → (a) likely vested interests → (b) merits/demerits of each option plus a better option → recommended course of action

Key points

Two red flags: the plot is protected heritage land (unsuitable, high-cost) and the acquisition smells of nepotism/vested interest.
Stakeholders: children (safe, accessible school), heritage/ASI, taxpayers, my own integrity.
(a) Vested interests: conflicted predecessor, Sarpanch-relative, officials who gave incomplete clearances, real-estate interest in nearby land.
(i) Awaiting the boss = abdication; (ii) written advice keeps a record but phone advice does not, and passes the buck.
(iii) Consulting the conflicted predecessor risks collusion; (iv) alternate plot + written report is the transparent, child-centric choice.
Best course: pre-visit documented report flagging heritage + suspect acquisition, recommend alternate site, involve ASI, refer for inquiry.
Values upheld: integrity, objectivity, transparency, and protection of both children and the monument.

Open full model answer →

Q.420 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

(a) Explain how ethics contributes to social and human well-being. (b) Why should impartiality and non-partisanship be considered as foundational values in public services, especially in the present day socio-political context? Illustrate your answer with examples.

Subtopic: Ethics Theory · ethics, impartiality and non-partisanship

Show model answer outline

Introduction → (a) how ethics contributes to social and human well-being → (b) impartiality and non-partisanship as foundational values → present-day relevance with examples → Conclusion

Key points

Ethics enables individuals and society to flourish by building trust and cooperation.
It ensures justice, dignity and protection of the weak, giving development a human purpose.
Tolerance and empathy sustain harmony in a diverse society; self-restraint curbs greed and violence.
Impartiality: treating all citizens equally without favour or prejudice.
Non-partisanship: serving the elected government loyally without political alignment.
In a polarised era they safeguard equal welfare delivery and institutional neutrality.
The permanent, politically neutral civil service embodies both - free advice, faithful implementation.

Open full model answer →

Q.520 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

A fresh engineering graduate gets a job in a prestigious chemical industry. She likes the work. The salary is also good. However, after a few months she accidentally discovers that a highly toxic waste is being secretly discharged into a river nearby. This is causing health problems to the villagers downstream who depend on the river for their water needs. She is perturbed and mentions her concern to her colleagues who have been with the company for longer periods. They advise her to keep quite as anyone who mentions the topic is summarily dismissed. She cannot risk losing her job as she is the sole bread-winner for her family and has to support her ailing parents and siblings. At first, she thinks that if her seniors are keeping quiet, why should she stick out her neck. But her conscience pricks her to do something to save the river and the people who depend upon it. At heart she feels that the advice of silence given by her friends is not correct though she cannot give reasons for it. She thinks you are a wise person and seeks your advice. (a) What arguments can you advance to show her that keeping quiet is not morally right? (b) What course of action would you advise her to adopt and why?

Subtopic: Case Study · whistle-blowing, conscience and job security

Show model answer outline

Introduction: conscience versus conformity and livelihood → stakeholders → ethical issues → (a) arguments that silence is morally wrong → (b) a prudent, protected course of action → Conclusion: courageous integrity, exercised wisely

Key points

Frame as a whistle-blowing dilemma: professional conscience and public duty versus job security and family dependence.
Key stakeholders: engineer, downstream villagers (right to life), company/complicit management, dependent family, environment/regulator.
Silence equals complicity in ongoing, foreseeable harm to innocent people.
Multi-framework case that silence is wrong: utilitarian (health of many > her risk), deontological (professional/civic duty), virtue (integrity and courage).
Prudence: gather documentary evidence before acting.
Escalation ladder: internal compliance channel first, then statutory authorities (Pollution Control Board), then media/NGO as last resort.
Invoke legal shields: Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014; Water Act 1974 and EP Act 1986 on the pollution itself.
Avoid rash resignation; the right choice is disclosure, executed in a graduated, protected manner.

Open full model answer →

Q.620 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

Land needed for mining, dams and other large-scale projects is acquired mostly from Adivasis, hill dwellers and rural communities. The displaced persons are paid monetary compensation as per the legal provisions. However, the payment is often tardy. In any case, it cannot sustain the displaced families for long. These people do not possess marketable skills to engage in some other occupation. They end up as low paid migrant labourers. Moreover, their traditional ways of community living are destroyed. Thus, the benefits of development go to industries, industrialists and urban communities whereas the costs are passed on to these poor helpless people. This unjust distribution of costs and benefits is unethical. Suppose you have been entrusted with the task of drafting a better compensation-cum-rehabilitation policy for such displaced persons, how would you approach the problem and what would be the main elements of your suggested policy?

Subtopic: Case Study · displacement and rehabilitation policy

Show model answer outline

Introduction → facts and stakeholders → ethical issues in current displacement → approach to a better policy → main elements of the policy → Conclusion

Key points

Core wrong: unjust distribution of development's costs (on the poor) and benefits (to industry/cities).
Ethical issues: distributive justice, Article 21 livelihood, informed consent, cultural loss.
Treat rehabilitation as a right and partnership, not one-time cash charity.
Fair, market-value, time-bound compensation with transparent disbursal.
Livelihood restoration: skilling, project jobs, equity/annuity/revenue share.
'Land for land', community resettlement and civic amenities preserve social fabric.
Free, prior and informed consent honouring PESA and Forest Rights Act, 2006; independent monitoring.

Open full model answer →

Q.720 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

Suppose you are an officer in-charge of implementing a social service scheme to provide support to old and destitute women. An old and illiterate woman comes to you to avail the benefits of the scheme. However, she has no documents to show that she fulfils the eligibility criteria. But after meeting her and listening to her you feel that she certainly needs support. Your enquiries also show that she is really destitute and living in a pitiable condition. You are in a dilemma as to what to do. Putting her under the scheme without necessary documents would clearly be violation of rules. But denying her the support would be cruel and inhuman. (a) Can you think of a rational way to resolve this dilemma? (b) Give your reasons for it.

Subtopic: Case Study · rules versus compassion in welfare delivery

Show model answer outline

Introduction → facts and stakeholders → the dilemma: rules vs compassion → (a) rational resolution → (b) reasons and ethical justification → Conclusion

Key points

Dilemma: documentary rule-compliance versus compassion and the scheme's core purpose.
Neither blindly break the rule nor cruelly refuse the deserving destitute.
Use legitimate discretion and alternative verification, not abandonment of verification.
Field enquiry plus Gram Panchayat/ward-member certification attests destitution.
Simultaneously help her obtain missing documents through camps/administration.
Provide permissible interim relief, then regularise enrolment on record.
Honours the rule's spirit, prevents fraud, and is documented and defensible.

Open full model answer →

Q.820 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are a young, aspiring and sincere employee in a Government office working as an assistant to the director of your department. Since you have joined recently, you need to learn and progress. Luckily your superior is very kind and ready to train you for your job. He is a very intelligent and well-informed person having knowledge of various departments. In short, you respect your boss and are looking forward to learn a lot from him. Since you have a good tuning with the boss, he started depending on you. One day due to ill health he invited you at his place for finishing some urgent work. You reached his house and before you could ring the bell you heard shouting noises. You waited for a while. After entering the house the boss greeted you and explained the work. But you were constantly disturbed by the crying of a woman. At last, you inquired with the boss but his answer did not satisfy you. Next day, you were compelled to inquire further in the office and found out that his behaviour is very bad at home with his wife. He also beats up his wife. His wife is not well educated and is a simple woman in comparison to her husband. You see that though your boss is a nice person in the office, he is engaged in domestic violence at home. In such a situation, you are left with the following options. Analyse each option with its consequences. (a) Just ignore thinking about it because it is their personal matter. (b) Report the case to the appropriate authority. (c) Your own innovative approach towards the situation.

Subtopic: Case Study · private conduct of a superior

Show model answer outline

Introduction → facts and stakeholders → ethical issues → analyse option (a) ignore → option (b) report → option (c) innovative approach → recommended course → Conclusion

Key points

Domestic violence is a crime and human-rights violation, not a private matter.
Option (a) ignore: morally cowardly, complicit, abandons the victim - unacceptable.
Option (b) report: legally correct under the PWDVA 2005, but sequencing and the wife's safety/consent matter.
Option (c) graded approach: counsel the boss, empower the wife with rights and helplines, escalate if abuse persists.
Prefer (c), escalating to (b) if it fails; never (a).
Balances gratitude and loyalty against protection of the vulnerable and moral courage.
Victim-centric response respects the wife's agency and safety.

Open full model answer →

Q.925 marks · 300w 20 min Hard

ABC Ltd. is a large transnational company having diversified business activities with a huge shareholder base. The company is continuously expanding and generating employment. The company, in its expansion and diversification programme, decides to establish a new plant at Vikaspuri, an area which is underdeveloped. The new plant is designed to use energy efficient technology that will help the company to save production cost by 20%. The company’s decision goes well with the Government policy of attracting investment to develop such underdeveloped regions. The Government has also announced tax holiday for five years for the companies that invest in underdeveloped areas. However, the new plant may bring chaos for the inhabitants of Vikaspuri region, which is otherwise tranquil. The new plant may result in increased cost of living, aliens migrating to the region, disturbing the social and economic order. The company sensing the possible protest tried to educate the people of Vikaspuri region and public in general that how its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy would help overcome the likely difficulties of the residents of Vikaspuri region. In spite of this the protests begin and some of the residents decided to approach the judiciary as their plea before the Government did not yield any result. (a) Identify the issues involved in the case. (b) What can be suggested to satisfy the company’s goal and to address the residents’ concerns?

Subtopic: Case Study · CSR, industrialisation and community rights

Show model answer outline

Introduction: frame the development-versus-displacement tension → identify stakeholders → identify issues (a): social disruption, authenticity of CSR, participation, environment, right to protest → evaluate options → recommend a participative, impact-assessed model (b) → Conclusion: inclusive, sustainable industrialisation

Key points

Central dilemma: legitimate investment-led regional development versus a settled community's right to its social and economic order and to prior consent.
Distinguish genuine benefit-sharing CSR from CSR used as public-relations pacification of protest.
Absence of free, prior and informed consultation is the procedural root of the conflict.
Concrete issues: cost-of-living inflation, in-migration, cultural dilution, ecological carrying capacity of a tranquil region.
Residents' democratic right to peaceful protest and to judicial remedy when the executive is unresponsive.
Remedy: Social/Environmental Impact Assessment, stakeholder consultation and grievance redress, local hiring and skilling.
Meaningful CSR under Section 135 into schools/health/housing, jointly monitored; phased build with capped footprint and a local-development fund.
Governing values: inclusive and sustainable development, stakeholder theory, distributive justice.

Open full model answer →

Q.1025 marks · 300w 20 min Hard

Saraswati was a successful IT professional in USA. Moved by the patriotic sense of doing something for the country she returned to India. Together with some other like-minded friends, she formed an NGO to build a school for a poor rural community. The objective of the school was to provide the best quality modern education at a nominal cost. She soon discovered that she has to seek permission from a number of Government agencies. The rules and procedures were quite confusing and cumbersome. What frustrated her most was the delays, callous attitude of officials and constant demand for bribes. Her experience and the experience of many others like her has deterred people from taking up social service projects. A measure of Government control over voluntary social work is necessary. But it should not be exercised in a coercive or corrupt manner. What measures can you suggest to ensure that due control is exercised but well meaning, honest NGO efforts are not thwarted?

Subtopic: Case Study · regulating the voluntary sector without stifling it

Show model answer outline

Introduction: the twin risk of unregulated NGOs and coercive over-regulation → stakeholders → ethical issues: red tape, extortion, autonomy versus accountability → measures for facilitative, transparent, trust-based control → Conclusion: enabling, not throttling, honest social work

Key points

Reconcile two legitimate needs: state oversight to prevent NGO misuse, and freedom for honest voluntary initiative.
Diagnose the real problem as rent-seeking, delay and administrative apathy — not the existence of regulation.
Shift from entry-barrier control to outcome-based, transparent accountability.
Single-window, online, time-bound clearances with deemed approval (Right to Public Services logic).
Risk-based light-touch scrutiny and self-certification for small NGOs; fuller audit for high-value/foreign-funded bodies.
Remove face-to-face discretion via e-governance to cut bribery; citizens' charters with penalties for delay.
Strong grievance redress and Prevention of Corruption Act action against officials demanding bribes.
Guiding value: trust-based facilitative regulation treating the social entrepreneur as partner, not suspect (Second ARC).

Open full model answer →

Q.1120 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are an honest and responsible civil servant. You often observe the following: (a) There is a general perception that adhering to ethical conduct one may face difficulties to oneself and cause problems for the family, whereas unfair practices may help to reach the career goals. (b) When the number of people adopting unfair means is large, a small minority having a penchant towards ethical means makes no difference. (c) Sticking to ethical means is detrimental to the larger developmental goals. (d) While one may not involve oneself in large unethical practices, but giving and accepting small gifts makes the system more efficient. Examine the above statements with their merits and demerits.

Subtopic: Case Study · ethical conduct versus expediency

Show model answer outline

Introduction → examine each rationalisation (a to d) with merits and demerits → underlying ethical fallacy → my reasoned stand → Conclusion

Key points

Each statement is a rationalisation trading integrity for short-term expediency.
(a) Unethical success corrodes self-respect and ultimately harms family more than it helps.
(b) The lone-minority argument is moral surrender; integrity has a demonstration effect.
(c) Development via unethical shortcuts is unsustainable and breeds distrust.
(d) Small gifts are the thin end of corruption and discriminate against the poor.
Conduct rules bar acceptance of gifts and illegitimate facilitation.
Ethical means are harder but the only durable foundation of public service.

Open full model answer →

Q.1220 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are aspiring to become an IAS officer and you have cleared various stages and now you have been selected for the personal interview. On the day of the interview, on the way to the venue you saw an accident where a mother and child who happen to be your relatives were badly injured. They needed immediate help. What would you have done in such a situation? Justify your action.

Subtopic: Case Study · compassion versus personal ambition in a crisis

Show model answer outline

Introduction: a split-second clash between a life and a life's ambition → stakeholders → ethical issues → options with merits and demerits → justified course: save the life, act smartly → Conclusion: the choice itself demonstrates fitness for service

Key points

Core clash: a once-in-a-lifetime career opportunity versus the immediate duty to save human life.
Stakeholders: injured mother and child, the candidate, bystanders, and the UPSC/fairness of process.
Ethical issues: value of human life and compassion versus personal ambition; emotional intelligence under stress.
Reject ignoring the victims — a grave moral failure incompatible with the ethos of public service.
Prioritise saving lives: no examination outweighs a human life.
Act with presence of mind: call 108 and police, mobilise bystanders, inform family, ensure hospital transfer.
Simultaneously contact the UPSC to explain the emergency and seek accommodation or rescheduling.
The decision itself demonstrates the compassion, courage and composure that qualify one for the service, even if the interview is lost.

Open full model answer →

Q.1320 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organisation. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went to strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the management board has asked for your recommendation. What recommendation would you provide the management? Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.

Subtopic: Case Study · compensation, contributory negligence and industrial harmony

Show model answer outline

Introduction: compassion for a family versus liability and moral hazard → stakeholders → ethical and legal issues → options with merits and demerits → recommended humanitarian middle path with preventive reform → Conclusion

Key points

Balance four concerns: compassion for an innocent family, fairness to the company, industrial harmony, and discouraging misconduct.
Stakeholders: dependent family, company/management, striking union, other employees and society.
Ethical tension: blameless dependents versus the worker's own contributory negligence (intoxication).
Employer's duty of care and workplace-safety obligation — was on-premises drinking left unchecked?
Key legal fact: under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the intoxication exception does not bar a claim where the injury results in death.
Option analysis: strict denial (deters misconduct but harsh, legally weak, inflames strike) vs unconditional full pay (compassionate but moral hazard/precedent).
Recommended middle path: fair statutory compensation/ex-gratia plus family welfare, coupled with alcohol screening, safety protocols and an employee assistance programme.
Outcome: honours the family's dignity, respects the law, protects the company long-term and restores industrial peace.

Open full model answer →

Q.1420 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are the manager of a spare parts company A and you have to negotiate a deal with the manager of a large manufacturing company B. The deal is highly competitive and sealing the deal is critical for your company. The deal is being worked out over a dinner. After dinner the manager of manufacturing company B offered to drop you to the hotel in his car. On the way to hotel he happens to hit motorcycle injuring the motorcyclist badly. You know the manager was driving fast and thus lost control. The law enforcement officer comes to investigate the issue and you are the sole eyewitness to it. Knowing the strict laws pertaining to road accidents you are aware that your honest account of the incident would lead to the prosecution of the manager and as a consequence the deal is likely to be jeopardised, which is of immense importance to your company. What are the dilemmas you face? What will be your response to the situation?

Subtopic: Case Study · honesty versus organisational loyalty

Show model answer outline

Introduction → facts and actors → competing values (truth/justice vs loyalty/self-interest) → dilemmas faced → options with merits and demerits → recommended response → Conclusion

Key points

Central conflict: truth, justice and legal duty versus loyalty to employer and self-interest.
Suppressing evidence is a criminal offence and denies the victim justice and compensation.
First responsibility is the injured motorcyclist — ensure immediate medical aid (Good Samaritan protection).
An honest eyewitness account is both a legal obligation and a test of personal integrity.
Transparency with my own organisation: the deal must not depend on my dishonesty.
Business relationships built on complicity are fragile; integrity builds durable trust.
Weighing consequences shows short-term gain does not justify long-term erosion of character and rule of law.

Open full model answer →

Q.1520 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

A building permitted for three floors, while being extended illegally to 6 floors by a builder, collapses. As a consequence, a number of innocent labourers including women and children died. These labourers are migrants of different places. The government immediately announced cash relief to the aggrieved families and arrested the builder. Give reasons for such incidents taking place across the country. Suggest measures to prevent their occurrence.

Subtopic: Case Study · building collapse and regulatory failure

Show model answer outline

Introduction → facts → systemic reasons (nexus, weak enforcement, labour vulnerability) → ethical and administrative failures → preventive measures (regulation, technology, accountability, labour welfare) → Conclusion

Key points

Root cause is the builder–regulator nexus and corruption enabling illegal deviations from sanctioned plans.
Weak enforcement of building bye-laws and National Building Code, not their absence, is the failure.
Migrant, unorganised labourers are the worst hit — no safety gear, insurance or voice.
Cash relief is reactive; the ethical duty is prevention of avoidable loss of life.
Personal accountability of inspecting engineers and officials is essential to deterrence.
Technology (GIS, drones, citizen portals) enables early detection of illegal construction.
Labour welfare laws (BOCW Act) and worker registration (e-Shram) protect and identify victims.

Open full model answer →

Q.1620 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are a Public Information Officer (PIO) in a government department. You are aware that the RTI Act, 2005 envisages transparency and accountability in administration. The Act has functioned as a check on the supposedly arbitrarily administrative behaviour and actions. However, as a PIO you have observed that there are citizens who filed RTI applications not for themselves but on behalf of such stakeholders who purportedly want to have access to information to further their own interests. At the same time there are those RTI activists who routinely file RTI applications and attempt to extort money from the decision makers. This type of RTI activism has affected the functioning of the administration adversely and also possibly jeopardises the genuineness of the applications which are essentially aimed at getting justice. What measures would you suggest to separate genuine and non-genuine applications? Give merits and demerits of your suggestions.

Subtopic: Case Study · RTI misuse and administrative integrity

Show model answer outline

Introduction → the PIO's concern → constraint that RTI needs no motive → measures to reduce misuse without screening intent → merits and demerits of each → Conclusion

Key points

Section 6(2) of the RTI Act forbids asking the applicant's motive — so intent-based screening is legally invalid.
The remedy must target abuse of process (extortion, flooding), not the right to information itself.
Strong Section 4 proactive disclosure is the single best cure — it removes the need to file.
Extortion and blackmail are separately punishable under criminal law; use that, not RTI curbs.
Personal and institutional integrity removes the leverage that blackmailers exploit.
Any fee or format measure must not deter genuine, poor applicants seeking justice.
Overzealous filters risk defeating transparency and shielding wrongdoing.

Open full model answer →

Q.1720 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

Rakesh is a responsible district level officer, who enjoys the trust of his higher officials. Knowing his honesty, the government entrusted him with the responsibility of identifying the beneficiaries under a healthcare scheme meant for senior citizens. The criteria to be a beneficiary are the following: (a) 60 years of age or above. (b) Belonging to a reserved community. (c) Family income of less than ₹ 1 lakh per annum. (d) Post-treatment prognosis is likely to be high to make a positive difference to the quality of life of the beneficiary. One day, an old couple visited Rakesh’s office with their application. They have been the residents of a village in his district since their birth. The old man is diagnosed with a rare condition that causes obstruction in the large intestine. As a consequence, he has severe abdominal pain frequently that prevents him from doing any physical labour. The couple have no children to support them. The expert surgeon whom they contacted is willing to do the surgery without charging any fee. However, the couple will have to bear the cost of incidental charges, such as medicines, hospitalization, etc., to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh. The couple fulfills all the criteria except criterion ‘b’. However, any financial aid would certainly make a significant difference in their quality of life. How should Rakesh respond to the situation?

Subtopic: Case Study · rule-bound eligibility versus compassion

Show model answer outline

Introduction: conflict between rule-fidelity and compassion → stakeholders → ethical issues (integrity, equity, empathy) → options for Rakesh → recommended action (deny under this scheme but help via legitimate alternatives) → Conclusion.

Key points

Eligibility criteria cannot be bent for individuals without destroying fairness and inviting favouritism.
An honest officer must not merely reject – he must creatively use lawful alternatives.
Route help via other schemes, discretionary/CSR/Red Cross funds, and public-hospital linkage with the willing surgeon.
Recommend a formal policy review if the criterion itself is inequitable.
Values in conflict: integrity/rule of law vs compassion/equity.
Solution reconciles probity with empathy through legitimate means, protecting other beneficiaries.

Open full model answer →

Q.1820 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

It is a State where prohibition is in force. You are recently appointed as the Superintendent of Police of a district notorious for illicit distillation of liquor. The illicit liquor leads to many deaths, reported and unreported, and causes a major problem for the district authorities. The approach till now had been to view it as a law and order problem and tackle it accordingly. Raids, arrests, police cases, criminal trials – all these had only limited impact. The problem remains as serious as ever. Your inspections show that the parts of the district where the distillation flourishes are economically, industrially and educationally backward. Agriculture is badly affected by poor irrigation facilities. Frequent clashes among communities gave boost to illicit distillation. No major initiatives had taken place in the past either from the government’s side or from social organizations to improve the lot of the people. Which new approach will you adopt to bring the problem under control?

Subtopic: Case Study · illicit liquor as a socio-economic, not merely law-and-order, problem

Show model answer outline

Introduction: reframe distillation as a development problem → dimensions of the crisis → stakeholders → a new multi-pronged approach (enforcement + livelihoods + community + de-addiction) → Conclusion: sustainable, participatory strategy.

Key points

Reframe illicit distillation as a socio-economic/development problem, not merely law and order.
Dimensions: public health deaths, backwardness, agrarian distress, community clashes, governance vacuum.
Smart enforcement targets financiers and supply chains; treats poor petty distillers as rehabilitation candidates.
Alternative livelihoods via MGNREGA, skilling, SHGs/micro-credit and irrigation – converge with district administration.
Mobilise women's SHGs, Gram Sabhas, NGOs and peace committees.
Add de-addiction, health outreach and education revival; monitor outcomes jointly.

Open full model answer →

Q.1920 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

A big corporate house is engaged in manufacturing industrial chemicals on a large scale. It proposes to set up an additional unit. Many States rejected its proposal due to detrimental effect on the environment. But one State government acceded to the request and permitted the unit close to a city, brushing aside all opposition. The unit was set up 10 years ago and was in full swing till recently. The pollution caused by the industrial effluents was affecting the land, water and crops in the area. It was also causing serious health problems to human beings and animals. This gave rise to a series of agitations demanding the closure of the plant. In a recent agitation thousands of people took part, creating a law and order problem necessitating stern police action. Following the public outcry, the State government ordered the closure of the factory. The closure of the factory resulted in the unemployment of not only those workers who were engaged in the factory but also those who were working in the ancillary units. It also very badly affected those industries which depended on the chemicals manufactured by it. As a senior officer entrusted with the responsibility of handling this issue, how are you going to address it?

Subtopic: Case Study · industrial pollution and closure dilemma

Show model answer outline

Introduction → facts → stakeholders → competing values (environment/health vs livelihood/economy/rule of law) → options with merits and demerits → recommended balanced course → Conclusion

Key points

Core conflict: right to a healthy environment (Article 21) versus right to livelihood and economic stability.
Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle govern the remedy.
Both permanent closure and unchanged reopening are one-sided and inadequate.
Conditional revival on verified, continuous compliance balances competing rights.
Polluter must fund environmental remediation and victims' health care.
Independent environmental and health audit should guide the decision.
Workers deserve a just-transition package — rehabilitation and reskilling; regulators must be held accountable.

Open full model answer →

Q.2020 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

Dr. X is a leading medical practitioner in a city. He has set up a charitable trust through which he plans to establish a super-speciality hospital in the city to cater to the medical needs of all sections of the society. Incidentally, that part of the State had been neglected over the years. The proposed hospital would be a boon for the region. You are heading the tax investigation agency of that region. During an inspection of the doctor’s clinic, your officers have found out some major irregularities. A few of them are substantial which had resulted in considerable withholding of tax that should be paid by him now. The doctor is cooperative. He undertakes to pay the tax immediately. However, there are certain other deficiencies in his tax compliance which are purely technical in nature. If these technical defaults are pursued by the agency, considerable time and energy of the doctor will be diverted to issues which are not so serious, urgent or even helpful to the tax collection process. Further, in all probability, it will hamper the prospects of the hospital coming up. There are two options before you: (i) Taking a broader view, ensure substantial tax compliance and ignore defaults that are merely technical in nature. (ii) Pursue the matter strictly and proceed on all fronts, whether substantial or merely technical. As the head of the tax agency, which course of action will you opt for and why?

Subtopic: Case Study · tax administration and technical vs substantial compliance

Show model answer outline

Introduction: dilemma of proportionality → stakeholders and their interests → ethical issues (rule of law vs public good, discretion vs arbitrariness) → evaluate both options on merits/demerits → recommended middle path (secure substantial tax, condone trivial technical defaults on record) → Conclusion: reasonable discretion serves both law and welfare.

Key points

Distinguish substantial defaults (recover fully) from purely technical ones (condone on record) – proportionality is the core ethical test.
Discretion is legitimate only when transparent, reasoned, rule-based and auditable – not personal favour.
Rigid legalism can produce an unethical outcome; the spirit and object of the law matter.
Public interest (healthcare for a neglected region) is a valid consideration but cannot waive legitimate tax dues.
Guard against precedent and perception of favouritism by documenting reasons and seeking supervisory concurrence.
Verify that no 'technical' lapse masks concealed evasion before condoning it.

Open full model answer →