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.110 marks · 150w 9 min Medium

“The good of an individual is contained in the good of all.” What do you understand by this statement? How can this principle be implemented in public life?

Subtopic: Ethics Theory · common good and Sarvodaya

Show model answer outline

Introduction (meaning; Gandhian Sarvodaya from Ruskin) → individual welfare inseparable from collective welfare → how to implement in public life → Conclusion

Key points

Rooted in Gandhi's Sarvodaya, adapted from Ruskin's Unto This Last
Individual welfare is inseparable from collective welfare
Rejects both selfish individualism and person-crushing collectivism
Implemented via Antyodaya — uplift of the weakest first
Public servants must place public interest above private/factional gain
Cooperatives, participation and redistribution operationalise the common good
Ethical foundation of the welfare state

Open full model answer →

Q.230 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

Given below are three quotations of great moral thinkers/philosophers. For each of these quotations, bring out what it means to you in the present context: (a) “There is enough on this earth for every one’s need but for no one’s greed.” — Mahatma Gandhi (b) “Nearly all men can withstand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” — Abraham Lincoln (c) “I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies.” — Aristotle

Subtopic: Thinkers & Quotes · Gandhi, Lincoln and Aristotle on restraint and character

Show model answer outline

Interpret (a) Gandhi on need vs greed → (b) Lincoln on power testing character → (c) Aristotle on mastering desire → synthesis linking restraint, character and self-mastery

Key points

Gandhi: distinguishes need from greed; basis of sustainability and trusteeship
Relevance to climate crisis, over-consumption and inequality
Lincoln: power, not adversity, tests true character by removing restraint
Power must be matched with accountability, humility and restraint
Aristotle: mastering one's own desires is greater than defeating enemies
Self-regulation and temperance underlie all ethical conduct
Common thread: inner restraint and character over circumstance

Open full model answer →

Q.310 marks · 150w 9 min Medium

It is often said that ‘politics’ and ‘ethics’ do not go together. What is your opinion in this regard? Justify your answer with illustrations.

Subtopic: Probity & Governance · politics and ethics

Show model answer outline

Introduction (state the cynical Machiavellian claim and disagree) → where politics and ethics align → where tension arises → why failures are of practitioners not of the principle → Conclusion

Key points

The claim rests on a cynical, Machiavellian view of politics as power by any means
Ethics gives politics its legitimacy and public-good orientation
Gandhi's satyagraha shows ethical politics in practice
Constitutional morality, RTI, Lokpal, codes of conduct institutionalise ethics
Shastri and Mandela exemplify integrity in high office
Criminalisation, populism and 'ends justify means' corrupt political conduct
These are failures of practitioners, not of ethics as a principle

Open full model answer →

Q.420 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

A Public Information Officer has received an application under RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees also who were party to these decisions. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result into lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice. The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options: (i) The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer and seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior. (ii) The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO. (iii) The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information. (iv) The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice. Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

Subtopic: Case Study · RTI disclosure and conflict of interest

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → ethical issues (conflict of interest, honesty, accountability) → evaluate options (i)-(iv) with merits/demerits → recommended course of action (full disclosure with recusal)

Key points

Core dilemma: honest RTI disclosure versus self-protection through suppression
Central ethical issue is conflict of interest — PIO as judge in his own cause
RTI Act mandates truthful disclosure; false denial invites penalty under Section 20
Option (iii) camouflaged disclosure is legally and ethically indefensible
Options (ii) and (iv) evade responsibility or deepen the conflict of interest
Recommended: full honest disclosure plus recusal to a superior/appellate authority
Owning an honest mistake attracts less censure than a cover-up
Transparency protects law, citizen's right and the officer's integrity

Open full model answer →

Q.520 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are working as an Executive Engineer in the construction cell of a Municipal Corporation and are presently in-charge of the construction of a flyover. There are two Junior Engineers under you who have the responsibility of day-to-day inspection of the site and are reporting to you, while you are finally reporting to the Chief Engineer who heads the cell. While the construction is heading towards completion, the Junior Engineers have been regularly reporting that all construction is taking place as per design specifications. However, in one of your surprise inspections, you have noticed some serious deviations and lacunae which, in your opinion, are likely to affect the safety of the flyover. Rectification of these lacunae at this stage would require a substantial amount of demolition and rework which will cause a tangible loss to the contractor and will also delay completion. There is a lot of public pressure on the Corporation to get this construction completed because of heavy traffic congestion in the area. When you brought this matter to the notice of the Chief Engineer, he advised you that in his opinion it is not a very serious lapse and may be ignored. He advised for further expediting the project for completion in time. However, you are convinced that this was a serious matter which might affect public safety and should not be left unaddressed. What will you do in such a situation? Some of the options are given below. Evaluate the merits and demerits of each of these options and finally suggest what course of action you would like to take, giving reasons: (i) Follow the advice of the Chief Engineer and go ahead. (ii) Make an exhaustive report of the situation bringing out all facts and analysis along with your own viewpoints stated clearly and seek for written orders from the Chief Engineer. (iii) Call for explanation from the Junior Engineers and issue orders to the contractor for necessary correction within targeted time. (iv) Highlight the issue so that it reaches superiors above the Chief Engineer. (v) Considering the rigid attitude of the Chief Engineer, seek transfer from the project or report sick.

Subtopic: Case Study · public safety vs superior's directive in engineering

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → ethical issues → evaluate options (i)–(v) with merits/demerits → recommended course of action → Conclusion

Key points

Core conflict: public safety versus cost, deadline, public pressure and obedience to a superior
An engineer's professional and moral duty to safety is paramount and non-delegable
Option (i) proceeding is ethically indefensible — risks lives
Option (ii) written report + written orders fixes accountability and record
Option (iii) directing JEs/contractor to rectify is the direct corrective action within authority
Option (iv) escalation is justified only if the CE persists; (v) transfer/sick leave is escapism
Recommended: rectify immediately (iii) + document and seek written orders (ii), escalate if overruled
Uphold integrity, courage of conviction and accountability; safety is non-negotiable

Open full model answer →

Q.625 marks · 300w 20 min Hard

Sivakasi in Tamil Nadu is known for its manufacturing clusters on firecrackers and matches. The local economy of the area is largely dependent on firecrackers industry. It has led to tangible economic development and improved standard of living in the area. So far as child labour norms for hazardous industries like firecrackers industry are concerned, International Labour Organization (ILO) has set the minimum age as 18 years. In India, however, this age is 14 years. The units in industrial clusters of firecrackers can be classified into registered and non-registered entities. One typical unit is household-based work. Though the law is clear on the use of child labour employment norms in registered/non-registered units, it does not include household-based works. Household-based work means children working under the supervision of their parents/relatives. To evade child labour norms, several units project themselves as household-based works but employ children from outside. Needless to say that employing children saves the costs for these units leading to higher profits to the owners. On your visit to one of the units at Sivakasi, the owner takes you around the unit which has about 10-15 children below 14 years of age. The owner tells you that in his household-based unit, the children are all his relatives. You notice that several children smirk, when the owner tells you this. On deeper enquiry, you figure out that neither the owner nor the children are able to satisfactorily establish their relationship with each other. (a) Bring out and discuss the ethical issues involved in the above case. (b) What would be your reaction after your above visit?

Subtopic: Case Study · child labour and evasion of protective law

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → (a) ethical issues involved → (b) my reaction/course of action → balancing livelihoods and child rights → Conclusion

Key points

Hazardous firecracker unit illegally employs children under 14 disguised as 'household-based' work
Ethical issues: violation of child rights, dignity and RTE; exploitation for profit
Deception and misuse of the household-work legal loophole defeats the law's intent
Conflict between local livelihoods/economy and the duty to protect children
Official's integrity and objectivity must resist the owner's false claim
Verify identity/relationship, record evidence, act under child-labour law
Rescue via Child Welfare Committee; rehabilitation, schooling, compensation
Address root cause — poverty — via livelihood support and adult employment; reform inspection to close loophole

Open full model answer →

Q.720 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are heading a leading technical institute of the country. The institute is planning to convene an interview panel shortly under your chairmanship for selection of the post of professors. A few days before the interview, you get a call from the Personal Secretary (PS) of a senior government functionary seeking your intervention in favour of the selection of a close relative of the functionary for this post. The PS also informs you that he is aware of the long pending and urgent proposals of your institute for grant of funds for modernization, which are awaiting the functionary’s approval. He assures you that he would get these proposals cleared. (a) What are the options available to you? (b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving reasons.

Subtopic: Case Study · nepotism and quid pro quo pressure in selection

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → ethical issues → (a) options available → (b) evaluation and chosen option → Conclusion

Key points

Veiled quid pro quo: favour a relative in selection in exchange for clearing pending funds
Core conflict: merit and fairness versus nepotism and institutional inducement
Ethical issues: integrity, impartiality, conflict of interest, abuse of authority
Option to yield = corruption, harms students; rejected
Aggressive confrontation is principled but hostile and risks legitimate funds
Best option: politely decline, guarantee a transparent merit-based interview
Pursue the funds separately through proper official channels on their own merit
Document the approach; involve the full panel if pressure escalates

Open full model answer →

Q.820 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

As a senior officer in the Finance Ministry, you have access to some confidential and crucial information about policy decisions that the Government is about to announce. These decisions are likely to have far-reaching impact on the housing and construction industry. If the builders have access to this information beforehand, they can make huge profits. One of the builders has done a lot of quality work for the Government and is known to be close to your immediate superior, who asks you to disclose this information to the said builder. (a) What are the options available to you? (b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving reasons.

Subtopic: Case Study · confidentiality and insider information

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → ethical issues → (a) options available → (b) evaluation and chosen option → Conclusion

Key points

Superior asks to leak confidential, market-sensitive policy to a favoured builder
This is insider disclosure and corruption causing public/market loss
Conflict: confidentiality and public interest versus obedience to superior
Obeying is a clear breach of law and secrecy — rejected
Blunt refusal is principled but exposes to retaliation without record
Best option: respectfully decline, cite illegality, secure the information
If pressure persists, seek written orders and escalate to vigilance/whistle-blower channel
Never trade official secrecy or public interest for private gain

Open full model answer →

Q.920 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are the Executive Director of an upcoming Infotech Company which is making a name for itself in the market. Mr. A, who is a star performer, is heading the marketing team. In a short period of one year, he has helped in doubling the revenues as well as creating a high brand equity for the Company so much so that you are thinking of promoting him. However, you have been receiving information from many corners about his attitude towards the female colleagues; particularly his habit of making loose comments on women. In addition, he regularly sends indecent SMS’s to all the team members including his female colleagues. One day, late in the evening, Mrs. X, who is one of Mr. A’s team members, comes to you visibly disturbed. She complains against the continued misconduct of Mr. A, who has been making undesirable advances towards her and has even tried to touch her inappropriately in his cabin. She tenders her resignation and leaves your office. (a) What are the options available to you? (b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option you would adopt, giving reasons.

Subtopic: Case Study · workplace sexual harassment and star-performer dilemma

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → ethical issues → (a) options available → (b) evaluation and chosen option → Conclusion

Key points

Serious sexual-harassment complaint against a high-performing employee; victim has resigned
Conflict: dignity/safety of women versus tolerating misconduct for business gain
Ethical issues: justice, due process, employer's duty to a safe workplace
Ignoring rewards a predator and breaks the law — rejected
Summary dismissal denies natural justice and may fail legally
Best option: refer to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for due inquiry
Support victim, prevent retaliation, counsel her to withdraw resignation
POSH Act, 2013 mandates ICC; strict action if guilty regardless of performance

Open full model answer →

Q.1020 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

(a) All human beings aspire for happiness. Do you agree? What does happiness mean to you? Explain with examples. (b) What does ethics seek to promote in human life? Why is it all the more important in public administration?

Subtopic: Ethics Theory · happiness and the role of ethics in public administration

Show model answer outline

Introduction → (a) agreement that all aspire to happiness; personal meaning with examples → (b) what ethics seeks to promote → why ethics matters more in public administration → Conclusion

Key points

Aristotle's eudaimonia: happiness as the ultimate end all goals serve
Happiness distinguished from fleeting pleasure — durable contentment from meaning and values
Ethics promotes well-being, harmony, justice, trust and dignity
Restrains harmful self-interest and guides conduct towards the right
Public power and resources are held as a trust, vulnerable to abuse
Administrative decisions affect millions, demanding fairness and impartiality
Wide discretion needs an internalised moral compass, not rules alone

Open full model answer →

Q.1120 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

(a) In the context of defence services, ‘patriotism’ demands readiness to even lay down one’s life in protecting the nation. According to you, what does patriotism imply in everyday civil life? Explain with illustrations and justify your answer. (b) What do you understand by ‘probity’ in public life? What are the difficulties in practicing it in the present times? How can these difficulties be overcome?

Subtopic: Probity & Governance · patriotism in civil life and probity in public life

Show model answer outline

Introduction → (a) patriotism in everyday civil life with illustrations → (b) meaning of probity, difficulties today, how to overcome them → Conclusion

Key points

Civil-life patriotism = everyday integrity and civic responsibility, not slogans
Includes honest duty, tax compliance, law-abidance, conserving resources, responsible voting
Probity = complete, confirmed integrity in public affairs, even when unobserved
Difficulties: corruption, materialism, political/peer pressure, weak enforcement
Criminalisation and money power in politics erode probity
Overcome via strong institutions — Lokpal, CVC, RTI — and whistleblower protection
Transparent e-governance, ethical codes and value education are essential
Leadership by example and social accountability sustain probity

Open full model answer →

Q.1220 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

(a) “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.” What do you understand by this statement? Explain your stand with illustrations from the modern context. (b) “Human beings should always be treated as ‘ends’ in themselves and never as merely ‘means’.” Explain the meaning and significance of this statement, giving its implications in the modern techno-economic society.

Subtopic: Thinkers & Quotes · integrity, knowledge and Kantian ends

Show model answer outline

Introduction → (a) unpack integrity–knowledge interdependence with illustrations → (b) Kant's Formula of Humanity, its meaning → implications in a techno-economic society → Conclusion on synthesis of competence and character

Key points

Integrity + knowledge are complementary: integrity gives direction, knowledge gives capability; either alone fails public purpose.
'Weak and useless' = sincere incompetence; 'dangerous and dreadful' = competent malfeasance (scams, technocratic abuse).
Statement (b) is Kant's Formula of Humanity (2nd form of the Categorical Imperative): persons have intrinsic, not instrumental, worth.
'Merely as means' is the key qualifier, we may use others' services if we also respect their autonomy and consent.
Techno-economic risks: surveillance capitalism, data mining, gig-work commodification, trafficking, non-consensual experimentation.
Constitutional anchors: Article 21 dignity, Puttaswamy privacy judgment, DPDP Act 2023, prohibition of bonded labour.
For a civil servant: competence without character breeds sophisticated corruption; character without competence breeds well-meaning failure.

Open full model answer →

Q.1320 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

(a) Which eminent personality has inspired you the most in the context of ethical conduct in life? Give the gist of his/her teachings. Giving specific examples, describe how you have been able to apply these teachings for your own ethical development. (b) There is a heavy ethical responsibility on the public servants because they occupy positions of power, handle huge amounts of public funds, and their decisions have wide-ranging impact on society and environment. What steps have you taken to improve your ethical competence to handle such responsibility?

Subtopic: Probity & Governance · role models and ethical competence

Show model answer outline

Introduction → (a) name a role model, distil core teachings, show personal application with examples → (b) concrete steps taken to build ethical competence for public responsibility → Conclusion linking values to accountable service

Key points

(a) Choose one genuine role model and give a crisp gist of teachings, avoid a laundry list.
Gandhi's core: truth, non-violence, purity of means, trusteeship, the 'talisman' (judge by effect on the weakest).
Application must be personal and specific: honesty under temptation, owning mistakes, service to the disadvantaged.
(b) Ethical competence is a cultivable capacity, not an innate trait; power + public funds + social impact raise the stakes.
Concrete steps: self-awareness of bias, transparency and conflict-of-interest disclosure, moral courage, empathy.
Anchor in codes: Nolan Committee's seven principles of public life, Second ARC's 'Ethics in Governance'.
Integrity is built by consistent small choices, not occasional grand gestures.

Open full model answer →

Q.1420 marks · 150w 20 min Hard

(a) The current society is plagued with widespread trust-deficit. What are the consequences of this situation for personal well-being and for societal well-being? What can you do at the personal level to make yourself trustworthy? (b) It is often said that poverty leads to corruption. However, there is no dearth of instances where affluent and powerful people indulge in corruption in a big way. What are the basic causes of corruption among people? Support your answer with examples.

Subtopic: Probity & Governance · trust deficit and roots of corruption

Show model answer outline

Introduction → (a) consequences of trust deficit for personal and societal well-being, then steps to become trustworthy → (b) basic causes of corruption across income groups with examples → Conclusion on trust as social capital

Key points

Trust is social capital that reduces transaction costs; its deficit is both a personal and a systemic cost.
Personal consequences: anxiety, isolation, weaker relationships, defensive behaviour.
Societal consequences: higher transaction/litigation costs, weak cooperation on public goods, institutional decay, poor tax and rule compliance.
Trustworthiness = competence (ability) + benevolence (goodwill) + integrity (consistency), demonstrated over time.
Corruption is driven by greed, not only need, the affluent are frequent, large-scale offenders.
Klitgaard: Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion − Accountability; add greed, weak deterrence, opacity, value erosion.
Cure needs both institutional reform (transparency, deterrence) and individual character-building.

Open full model answer →

Q.1510 marks · 150w 9 min Medium

What factors affect the formation of a person’s attitude towards social problems? In our society, contrasting attitudes are prevalent about many social problems. What contrasting attitudes do you notice about the caste system in our society? How do you explain the existence of these contrasting attitudes?

Subtopic: Ethics Theory · attitude formation and social problems

Show model answer outline

Introduction defining attitude → factors shaping attitudes towards social problems → contrasting attitudes towards the caste system → explanation of why they coexist → Conclusion

Key points

Attitude = learned, relatively enduring predisposition to respond consistently towards an object.
Formation factors: family/socialisation, education, reference & peer groups, religion/culture, direct experience, economic interest, media.
Caste attitude 1: reformist-egalitarian, caste as injustice to be abolished; supports reservation, inter-caste marriage.
Caste attitude 2: conservative-traditional, caste as legitimate order/identity; may justify endogamy, hierarchy.
Ambivalent middle: verbal rejection of caste but practice of it in marriage and social distance.
Coexistence explained by differential socialisation, self-interest of the privileged vs lived humiliation of the disadvantaged.
Persistent gap between constitutional morality (Article 17) and social custom sustains contradiction.

Open full model answer →

Q.1610 marks · 150w 9 min Medium

What does ‘accountability’ mean in the context of public service? What measures can be adopted to ensure individual and collective accountability of public servants?

Subtopic: Probity & Governance · accountability in public service

Show model answer outline

Introduction defining accountability in public service → its dimensions → measures for individual accountability → measures for collective accountability → Conclusion

Key points

Accountability = obligation to answer for duties, justify actions and bear responsibility for outcomes, to superiors and citizens.
Twin pillars: answerability (giving reasons) and enforceability (facing consequences).
Dimensions: political, administrative, legal, financial and social accountability.
Individual measures: outcome-based appraisal, Citizens' Charter/Right to Service, recording reasons, disciplinary rules, asset declaration.
Collective measures: social audits, RTI/proactive disclosure, CAG-CVC-Lokpal oversight, grievance redress, e-governance.
Whistle-blower protection strengthens both individual and systemic accountability.
Accountability fails when answerability is not backed by timely consequences.

Open full model answer →

Q.1710 marks · 150w 9 min Medium

We are witnessing increasing instances of sexual violence against women in the country. Despite existing legal provisions against it, the number of such incidences is on the rise. Suggest some innovative measures to tackle this menace.

Subtopic: Probity & Governance · gender safety and the administrative response

Show model answer outline

Introduction on the gap between law and outcomes → why laws alone fail → innovative preventive, protective and rehabilitative measures → role of technology and attitude change → Conclusion

Key points

Laws deter after the crime; root causes are patriarchal attitudes, weak enforcement, low convictions and stigma.
Prevention: gender-sensitisation and consent education from school; engage men and boys as allies.
Safe spaces: gender-audited urban design, lighting, CCTV, safe and monitored public transport.
Technology: panic buttons/GPS (Nirbhaya Fund), one-stop centres, confidential reporting apps, emergency response (Dial 112).
Justice: fast-track courts, more women in police, forensic capacity, time-bound probes, no secondary victimisation.
Empowerment: economic independence, self-defence training, active-bystander and community vigilance.
Whole-of-society approach, certainty of punishment plus cultural respect, is more effective than harsher laws alone.

Open full model answer →

Q.1820 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

Now-a-days, there is an increasing thrust on economic development all around the globe. At the same time, there is also an increasing concern about environmental degradation caused by development. Many a time, we face a direct conflict between developmental activity and environmental quality. It is neither feasible to stop or curtail the developmental process, nor it is advisable to keep degrading the environment, as it threatens our very survival. Discuss some feasible strategies which could be adopted to eliminate this conflict and which could lead to sustainable development.

Subtopic: Case Study · sustainable development and the growth–environment conflict

Show model answer outline

Introduction framing the development–environment dilemma → why the conflict arises → feasible strategies (policy, technology, economic instruments, governance, values) → institutional and ethical anchors → Conclusion on sustainable development

Key points

Conflict stems from treating growth and environment as a zero-sum trade-off; sustainable development reframes it as complementary.
Brundtland definition: meet present needs without compromising future generations, intergenerational equity.
Planning tools: independent EIA, ecological cost-benefit analysis, no-go zoning for fragile areas.
Economic instruments: polluter-pays, precautionary principle, green taxes, ending perverse subsidies.
Technology: clean energy, green hydrogen, circular economy, decoupling growth from resource use.
Community stake: JFM, watershed and ecosystem-based livelihoods that reward conservation.
Legal anchors: Articles 48A & 51A(g), Article 21 (healthy environment), NGT, public-trust doctrine, SDGs, Paris Agreement.

Open full model answer →

Q.1920 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You are a no-nonsense, honest officer. You have been transferred to a remote district to head a department that is notorious for its inefficiency and callousness. You find that the main cause of the poor state of affairs is the indiscipline of a section of employees. They do not work themselves and also disrupt the working of others. You first warned the troublemakers to mend their ways or else face disciplinary action. When the warning had little effect, you issued a show cause notice to the ringleaders. As a retaliatory measure, these troublemakers instigated a woman employee amongst them to file a complaint of sexual harassment against you with the Women’s Commission. The Commission promptly seeks your explanation. The matter is also publicized in the media to embarrass you further. Some of the options to handle this situation could be as follows: (i) Give your explanation to the Commission and go soft on the disciplinary action. (ii) Ignore the Commission and proceed firmly with the disciplinary action. (iii) Brief your higher-ups, seek directions from them and act accordingly. Suggest any other possible option(s). Evaluate all of them and suggest the best course of action, giving your reasons for it.

Subtopic: Case Study · disciplinary action and a retaliatory false complaint

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → ethical issues (discipline vs intimidation, misuse of protective law) → evaluate options (i)-(iii) → recommended course of action (separate the two issues, cooperate with Commission and continue discipline on record)

Key points

Separate the two issues — the harassment complaint and the disciplinary action
Cooperate fully and truthfully with the statutory Women's Commission
Never treat a harassment charge dismissively, even if suspected to be instigated
Continue legitimate disciplinary action strictly on record and due procedure
Going soft rewards indiscipline and yields to blackmail
Ignoring a statutory body is illegal and denies due process
Keep superiors informed in writing; let facts answer the media
Protect both rule of law and genuine gender-justice mechanisms

Open full model answer →

Q.2020 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

Suppose you are the CEO of a company that manufactures specialized electronic equipment used by a government department. You have submitted your bid for the supply of this equipment to the department. Both the quality and cost of your offer are better than those of the competitors. Yet the concerned officer is demanding a hefty bribe for approving the tender. Getting the order is important both for you and for your company. Not getting the order would mean closing a production line. It may also affect your own career. However, as a value-conscious person, you do not want to give bribe. Valid arguments can be advanced both for giving the bribe and getting the order, and for refusing to pay the bribe and risking the loss of the order. What those arguments could be? Could there be any better way to get out of this dilemma? If so, outline the main elements of this third way, pointing out its merits.

Subtopic: Case Study · bribery in a government tender and the third-way approach

Show model answer outline

Facts → stakeholders → arguments for and against paying → ethical issues → the better third way (escalation, vigilance, procurement transparency) → recommended course of action

Key points

Dilemma: pay bribe to save the order/jobs versus uphold integrity and the law
Bribery violates the Prevention of Corruption Act
Paying invites repeated future extortion and blackmail
Company has a genuinely superior bid on both quality and cost
Third way: escalate above the corrupt officer to the CVC/senior authority
Use RTI, written channels, evidence-gathering and sanctioned traps
Leverage integrity pacts, e-procurement and GeM transparency
Refusing plus escalation protects integrity and long-term reputation

Open full model answer →