(a) “In doing a good thing, everything is permitted which is not prohibited expressly or by clear implication.” Examine the statement with suitable examples in the context of a public servant discharging his/her duties. (10 marks, 150 words) (b) With regard to morality of actions, one view is that means are of paramount importance and the other view is that the ends justify the means. Which view do you think is more appropriate? Justify your answer. (10 marks, 150 words)

(a) "Everything not expressly prohibited is permitted"

For a private citizen this maxim is largely valid – liberty is the rule. But for a public servant it is dangerous. Public power is a trust exercised for others, so an official is bound not merely by what is prohibited but by the positive duties of public interest, fairness and the spirit of the law.

• Silence in a rule is not licence: discretion must still be reasonable, non-arbitrary and in public interest.
• A collector who exploits a gap in rules to favour a firm, though "not expressly prohibited", violates his fiduciary duty.
• Conversely, doing genuine public good in a novel situation not covered by rules (e.g. an innovative relief measure during a disaster) is justified because it serves the object of the office.

Thus the maxim holds only when the act genuinely serves the public good and the spirit of the law, not personal or improper ends.

(b) Means versus ends

I hold that means are of paramount importance. Good ends pursued through corrupt or coercive means corrupt the end itself and destroy public trust – an outcome Gandhi captured in "means are after all everything". Ends-justify-means reasoning licenses torture, false encounters or manipulated data for "good" goals, but these erode the very values a democratic state exists to protect.

Ethical means are also the only way to ensure the end is genuinely good and durable. Hence, while outcomes matter, they must be reached through just, lawful and transparent means.