Ethics: May 2025 UPSC Current Affairs | UPSC Mains: Ethics, Integrity & Aptitude PDF Download

Case Study 1: Compromised Diplomat and Classified Negotiations

Scenario: You are a senior diplomat in the foreign affairs ministry. A mid-level diplomat under your mentorship has been honey-trapped via an encrypted messaging app, leading to the leak of sensitive negotiation strategies to a foreign entity. The diplomat is exceptionally talented, critical to ongoing trade talks, and personally close to you. The ministry demands strict action, but media exposure could jeopardize international relations and tarnish the ministry’s reputation.

Facts of the Case

Stakeholders Involved:

• Mid-level diplomat (honey-trapped)
• Foreign affairs ministry
• Yourself (senior diplomat)
• Media
• Foreign governments
• Public

Ethical Issues Involved

• Human Vulnerability: The diplomat’s susceptibility to emotional manipulation highlights risks to sensitive diplomatic processes.
• Breach of Trust: Leaked strategies undermine public and international trust in the ministry’s competence.
• Personal Loyalty vs. Duty: Your mentorship and personal bond with the diplomat may bias you against punitive measures.
• Media Scrutiny: Premature media coverage could escalate diplomatic tensions.

Options Available

• Impose Strict Disciplinary Action
  • Merits: Upholds professional accountability and deters future lapses.
  • Demerits: Loss of a key negotiator and potential diplomatic fallout from media exposure.
• Issue a Warning and Retrain
  • Merits: Retains talent and allows the diplomat to redeem themselves.
  • Demerits: Risks setting a lenient precedent, potentially encouraging further vulnerabilities.

Course of Action

• Form a discreet investigation team to assess the extent of the leak and its impact on negotiations.
• Suspend the diplomat temporarily, restricting access to classified systems.
• Engage cyber forensic experts to trace the breach and identify accomplices.
• Issue a carefully worded media statement to maintain transparency without compromising ongoing talks.
• Implement mandatory training on social engineering and cyber hygiene for all diplomats.

Conclusion: Duty to national interest outweighs personal loyalty. A thorough investigation and preventive measures ensure accountability while safeguarding diplomatic integrity.

Case Study 2: Cybersecurity Breach in Defense Agency

Scenario: As a senior officer in a defense intelligence agency, you discover that a junior analyst, whom you trained, was honey-trapped through a gaming platform, resulting in a malware attack that exposed classified defense protocols. The analyst is a brilliant coder, vital to cybersecurity operations, and respects you deeply. Colleagues demand severe punishment, but public exposure could weaken national defense credibility.

Facts of the Case

Stakeholders Involved:

• Junior analyst
• Defense agency
• Yourself (senior officer)
• Media
• Adversary states
• Citizens

Ethical Issues Involved

• Emotional Manipulation: The analyst’s exploitation via a gaming platform reveals personal vulnerabilities in high-stakes roles.
• National Security Risk: Leaked protocols could embolden adversaries.
• Mentorship Conflict: Your relationship with the analyst complicates objective decision-making.
• Public Perception: Media leaks could erode confidence in defense capabilities.

Options Available

• Severe Punishment (Termination)
  • Merits: Reinforces zero-tolerance for security breaches.
  • Demerits: Loss of a skilled coder and potential media backlash.
• Reprimand and Monitoring
  • Merits: Preserves talent and encourages reform.
  • Demerits: May appear lenient, risking future breaches.

Course of Action

• Establish an internal probe to quantify the breach’s impact and identify compromised systems.
• Suspend the analyst and revoke their system access pending investigation.
• Collaborate with cybersecurity experts to contain and mitigate the breach.
• Address media with a statement emphasizing proactive measures without disclosing sensitive details.
• Introduce regular cybersecurity awareness programs focusing on social engineering risks.

Conclusion: National security demands prioritizing protocol integrity over personal ties, ensuring robust safeguards against future threats.

Case Study 3: Leaked Intelligence via Dating App

Scenario: As head of an intelligence unit, you learn that a junior operative, a protégé of yours, was honey-trapped via a dating app, leading to the leak of covert operation plans. The operative is a top field agent, and the unit insists on harsh penalties. Public disclosure could compromise ongoing missions and damage the agency’s reputation.

Facts of the Case

Stakeholders Involved:

• Junior operative
• Intelligence unit
• Yourself (unit head)
• Media
• Allied agencies
• Public

Ethical Issues Involved

• Human Weakness: Emotional manipulation through personal relationships endangers covert operations.
• Trust Erosion: Leaks undermine confidence in intelligence operations.
• Mentorship Bias: Your guidance of the operative may cloud judgment.
• Media Exposure: Sensationalized reporting could disrupt active missions.

Options Available

• Dismiss the Operative
  • Merits: Demonstrates accountability and deters negligence.
  • Demerits: Loss of a skilled agent and risk of operational exposure.
• Issue a Warning and Retrain
  • Merits: Retains expertise and fosters improvement.
  • Demerits: May weaken discipline and invite further risks.

Course of Action

• Form a covert investigation team to assess the leak’s scope and operational impact.
• Temporarily reassign the operative to non-sensitive duties and restrict access.
• Consult cyber experts to secure compromised channels and detect additional threats.
• Manage media through a controlled narrative to minimize operational damage.
• Mandate training on recognizing and resisting social engineering tactics.

Conclusion: Duty to protect national interests supersedes personal bonds, requiring decisive action balanced with preventive training.

Case Study 4: Corporate Espionage in a Government Contractor

Scenario: You are a senior manager at a government-contracted tech firm. A junior engineer, whom you’ve mentored, was honey-trapped via a professional networking site, leaking proprietary defense technology designs. The engineer is a prodigy critical to innovation, and colleagues demand termination. Publicity could harm the firm’s contracts and national security.

Facts of the Case

Stakeholders Involved:

• Junior engineer
• Tech firm
• Yourself (senior manager)
• Government
• Media
• Competitors

Ethical Issues Involved

• Exploited Trust: Emotional manipulation via professional platforms risks proprietary data.
• Corporate Reputation: Leaks could jeopardize government contracts.
• Personal Connection: Mentorship may bias disciplinary decisions.
• Public Backlash: Media scrutiny could damage the firm’s credibility.

Options Available

• Terminate the Engineer
  • Merits: Upholds accountability and protects contracts.
  • Demerits: Loss of talent and potential legal or media fallout.
• Reprimand and Restrict Access
  • Merits: Retains expertise and encourages reform.
  • Demerits: Risks further leaks and undermines discipline.

Course of Action

• Initiate an internal audit to evaluate the leak’s impact on defense projects.
• Suspend the engineer and limit access to sensitive systems.
• Engage cybersecurity specialists to trace the breach and secure designs.
• Issue a discreet public statement to maintain trust with government partners.
• Implement mandatory training on professional platform security risks.

Conclusion: Protecting national and corporate interests requires balancing accountability with talent retention through stringent measures.

Case Study 5: Border Security Leak via Social Media

Scenario: As a senior border security official, you discover that a junior officer, a close mentee, was honey-trapped via social media, leaking patrol schedules to a smuggling syndicate. The officer is highly skilled in surveillance tech, and the agency demands severe action. Public exposure could weaken border security perceptions.

Facts of the Case

Stakeholders Involved:

• Junior officer
• Border security agency
• Yourself (senior official)
• Media
• Smuggling syndicates
• Public

Ethical Issues Involved

• Vulnerability to Manipulation: Emotional exploitation compromises border security.
• Public Trust: Leaks erode confidence in agency effectiveness.
• Mentorship Conflict: Personal ties may hinder impartial action.
• Media Risks: Exposure could embolden criminal networks.

Options Available

• Dismiss the Officer
  • Merits: Reinforces accountability and deters negligence.
  • Demerits: Loss of surveillance expertise and media scrutiny.
• Issue a Warning and Retrain
  • Merits: Preserves talent and allows redemption.
  • Demerits: May encourage lax behavior and further leaks.

Course of Action

• Form an investigation team to assess the leak’s impact on border operations.
• Suspend the officer and revoke access to operational systems.
• Collaborate with cyber experts to secure communication channels.
• Address media with a statement emphasizing swift corrective action.
• Conduct training on social media risks and operational security.

Conclusion: National security demands prioritizing duty over personal loyalty, ensuring robust measures to prevent future breaches.