You are the Director of a Central PSU’s R&D centre. A foreign trade delegation, accompanied by your administrative Ministry’s Joint Secretary, is visiting a sensitive prototype lab. During the demonstration, the visiting senior diplomat photographs a circuit-board you know contains a non-public design feature funded by DRDO. The visiting team’s protocol officer asks you to permit the photograph as a ‘goodwill gesture’ to advance an MoU. The DRDO liaison is not present. The JS gives an oral nod. The MoU could secure a ₹2,800 crore export order. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.
Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Foreign delegation / diplomatic protocol
How to structure your answer
1. Dilemma: diplomatic courtesy and commercial opportunity vs national-security obligations.
2. Stakeholders: DRDO, MEA, MoU partner, future export market, JS, citizens of India.
3. Options: (a) permit the photograph — security breach; (b) refuse rudely — diplomatic damage; (c) politely intervene, request deletion under the standard visiting-lab protocol, defer the MoU clause for a controlled photo-session approved by DRDO Liaison, brief MEA — hard right.
4. Decision: Option (c) — invoke the lab's pre-agreed Visitor Photography Protocol, ensure on-the-spot deletion in the diplomat's presence, follow up with a written record to MEA-MoD-Ministry.
5. Safeguard: CCTV preserved; protocol officer's written acknowledgment; note-sheet recording JS oral order; alternative controlled photo session arranged.
Written within the word limit
226 words · target 250 words · 14 min
Dilemma: Diplomatic courtesy and a Rs 2,800 crore export MoU versus national-security obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1923 for a DRDO-funded non-public design feature photographed without DRDO clearance.
Stakeholders: DRDO and the wider defence ecosystem; the citizens of India (national security); the visiting delegation and the foreign State; the Joint Secretary giving the oral nod; MEA's protocol cell; the future export market; the PSU board; the Director's own probity record.
Options: (a) permit the photograph as 'goodwill' — a clear breach of the Official Secrets Act 1923 and the DRDO Visitor Protocol; (b) refuse rudely in the delegation's presence — diplomatic damage that the Vienna Convention 1961 does not require; (c) politely intervene under the lab's pre-agreed Visitor Photography Protocol, request on-the-spot deletion in the diplomat's presence, offer a controlled, DRDO-cleared photo session for non-sensitive equipment as an alternative, and brief MEA-MoD-Ministry in writing — the hard right.
Decision: Option (c). Reasons — fidelity to the Official Secrets Act 1923 and the DRDO Visitor Protocol (national security, integrity); the Nolan principle of leadership in handling a JS's oral order with a written follow-up under AIS (Conduct) Rules Rule 3(3); and the Vienna Convention 1961 limit on diplomatic privilege (rule-of-law).
Safeguard: Preserve CCTV; obtain the protocol officer's written acknowledgment of deletion; record the JS oral order in the note-sheet with a request for written confirmation; arrange the alternative controlled session; intimate DRDO Liaison and MEA same day.
What an examiner expects to see
- Official Secrets Act 1923 — defence/prohibited place obligations
- MEA's Norms of Diplomatic Protocol — visiting-lab clearances
- DRDO Visitor Protocol — accompanied access only
- Nolan principles — integrity, leadership
- AIS Conduct Rules 1968 Rule 3(3) — written instruction for oral order
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 — diplomatic privilege limits
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Strategic technology export controls — DRDO Tejas component sensitivities
- Naval design IP cases in dockyard tours 2010-15
- ISRO foreign-delegation protocols, post Chandrayaan-3