Ethics Case Studies Compilation (1 to 5) - UPSC Mains Ethics, Integrity

Case - 1

Q.1. You are the District Magistrate of a district. Some day while travelling on the road in your district, you find that in a certain place, the road is very congested. This leads to frequent traffic jams and causes huge discomfort to the localites. You discuss the matter in your office and you come to know that this problem has arisen due to heavy encroachment of shops on both sides of the road. The only way to broaden the road is by demolishing the encroachment. However, you are also told that these shops had been there for generations, and removing these shops would affect the livelihood of the owners. Then ordered the demolition of the illegal encroachments. Your order was welcomed by the daily commuters and many law-abiding citizens. However, a huge uproar started taking place in the city against your orders by those whose shops are to be demolished. All political parties, including the ruling party, came in support of the business community. 
Which of the options should be followed by you? 
1. Stop the demolition drive and let things remain as they were. 
2. Carry out the demolition drive strictly as per the established law. 
3. Allow the businessmen to approach the court and get stay orders. 
4. Any other option available to you. Discuss with reasons. 
Ans: Carry out the lawful demolition while ensuring full due process, stakeholder engagement and humane rehabilitation measures.
Reasoned explanation and steps to follow:

• Verify Legal Foundation: Ensure that every order and action is backed by clear statutory authority and that all required notices under law have been issued. Confirm record of previous warnings or eviction notices, so that the action is procedurally unimpeachable.
• Follow Due Process Strictly: Proceed only after giving the prescribed notice period, completing statutory hearings and obtaining necessary internal approvals. Engage municipal/police machinery for orderly execution so that law and order are maintained.
• Consult Stakeholders: Prior to final action, consult Residents Welfare Associations, business representatives and elected representatives to explain public interest reasons for road widening and the legal basis for eviction.
• Offer Rehabilitation/Relief Measures: Arrange time-bound compensation, relocation sites, concessional stalls/markets, or livelihood support schemes for those displaced. Practical mitigation reduces hardship and strengthens legitimacy of the action.
• Transparent Communication: Use public notices and the local media to explain benefits for commuters, emergency services and local businesses in the long run. Transparency reduces rumours and political exploitation.
• Handle Political Pressure Professionally: Maintain the office's neutrality; refuse extraneous directions that compromise legal process. If unlawful obstruction occurs, use legal remedies and keep records of undue pressure.
• Facilitate Legal Recourse: Allow aggrieved parties to approach courts. Do not deliberately delay action by creating informal stays. If courts stay the action, comply with the judicial order promptly.

Conclusion: The correct course is to enforce the law (option 2) but to combine it with consultative and rehabilitative measures (option 4). This balances rule of law, administrative integrity and compassion for affected persons, while protecting public interest.

Case - 2

Q.2. You are a senior engineer in a government department responsible for the construction of a national highway. You are an honest officer and you have never followed any corrupt practice in your life. However, you have always been a very obedient person who followed the instructions of your superiors. In one case you are being asked by your chief engineer to give the son of a minister who was under a lot of pressure the tender for the road construction. You have awarded the tender without following the rules and regulations because you would not refuse your manager. You have recently been appointed as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of your department. One day, you receive a request from an RTI activist, who is seeking information related to all the tender approvals you have made in the last five years. You know that if an RTI activist gets this information, you may be in big trouble. 
What should you do in this situation? 
1. Refuse to provide any information under RTI. 
2. Provide all details except incorrect tender file information. 
3. Talk to your senior engineer about this and seek his or her advice and authorization. 
4. Any other method. Please correct the action. 
Ans. There are well-established tendering procedures in all government departments. Any breach of procedure during the awarding of a tender is illegal, which may call for vigilant action under the Anti-Corruption Act. Although a government official is expected to follow the orders of his superior, he is not obliged to follow the orders of his superiors, especially if these are given verbally. It is also provided in the 'rules of conduct' that all oral instructions should be rewritten as soon as possible. All decisions made by government officials must be recorded in files that remain in the department whether the official is transferred or retired. Thus, illegal activities by government officials follow for several years after the operation. Now let's talk about the different options in this case.
1. The PIO is obliged to provide accurate legal information. Provision of information on tenders is not included under any exclusion clause provided for in the RTI Act. Therefore, non-disclosure of information may call for personal punishment under the RTI and departmental action against the officer. Therefore, this is not the right choice.
2. It is the PIO's duty to provide complete and accurate information. Deliberate withdrawal from a tender may constitute an honest and invalid procedure for non-disciplinary proceedings under the RTI Act. Such deliberate omission can be used as evidence against him. In addition, an RTI activist may file a new application or speak to the appeal authority to compel the PIO to provide certain documentation. So, this is also not the right choice.
3. The PIO may discuss the matter with anyone, but only he or she may be responsible for providing the information. Government processes often give the optional head of department - as a senior engineer - the right to award tenders to other tenderers in special cases accordingly. If the tender was valid and the breach was procedural, it could be approved by the Chief Engineer. This option may be tested.
4. The official must provide complete and accurate information. If the question is ordered based on the RTI and the matter is investigated, he or she must provide an accurate statement during the investigation. Since the officer has always been an honest officer, a minor sentence - including a warning - can be issued against him for violating procedures, which may have no long-term consequences. This is the best option.

Case - 3

Q.3. Ram has been appointed as a legal magistrate in India. One morning, while walking through the park, he saw a man being attacked by a criminal with a knife. He hid behind a tree where he could easily see the face of the attacker who fled the scene after seriously injuring the man. The deceased later died at the hospital. Ram did not report the matter to anyone as he did not want to get into legal trouble. Years later, he was promoted to district judge. One day, the same murder trial came before him. Police conducted a thorough investigation and opened the case to the accused. When the accused was brought before Ram, he quickly realized that it was not the killer. However, there were many witnesses in the case, and there was written evidence to prove that the defendant had committed the crime. During the intermission, Ram called the defendant to his room and asked him, 'Tell me honestly. Did you commit this murder? 'The man fell at his feet and said,' Lord, I did not kill this! The police falsely accused me. 'Ram asked him why the police had tried to lie to him. The suspect said, 'Sir, I am a professional killer. I killed the first person and got Rs 10 lakh for murder. I paid the police part of the money. When I killed the second time, I got Rs 20 lakh again, I gave the police Rs 10 lakh to help me. When the murder took place, the police asked me to pay again. I refused to pay since I did not commit this murder. Therefore, they falsely accused me of this crime. 'Ram knew in advance that the accused was not a murderer. Now he faces a moral dilemma.
What should he do?
1. Should he confess to the court that he was a witness in a murder case, but did not go public as a witness to avoid harassment?
2. Should he or she punish the defendant in accordance with the law based on the evidence presented before the court?
3. Any other means you can suggest to the judges. 
Confirm your answer.
Ans: Ram must disclose his prior knowledge and recuse himself from the case, and he should insist on an independent investigation into the wider allegations of police corruption.
Rationale and recommended actions:

• Immediate Disclosure: As soon as he recognises his prior presence at the crime scene, Ram has a duty to disclose that fact to the court and the parties. Silence would compromise judicial impartiality and integrity.
• Recusal: He should withdraw from adjudicating the case because he is a material witness and his impartiality can reasonably be questioned. Recusal preserves public confidence in the judiciary.
• Report to Investigating Agencies: Ram should provide a written statement to the police and, where appropriate, to an independent agency such as the state CID, Special Task Force or CBI, setting out what he observed at the time and the subsequent encounter with the accused.
• Seek Independent Enquiry into Police Conduct: The accused's allegation of police collusion and pay-offs is grave. Ram should recommend an independent probe into these claims so that evidence of corruption or tampering can be examined and, if substantiated, responsible officers can be prosecuted.
• Protect Fair Trial Rights: Any action must ensure that the accused's legal rights are safeguarded. Evidence must be collected and evaluated through authorised procedures; extrajudicial confessions or hearsay should not replace proper evidence gathering.

Conclusion: Do not decide the case yourself. Disclose, recuse and enable a transparent, independent investigation so that justice is served without compromising judicial ethics or the accused's legal rights.

Case - 4

Q.4. He is the head of the HR department at a well-known company. The company should elect a manager at the top of your organization. Your team has added you to a list of a few applicants and submitted CVs for people to receive for approval. When you look at the list, you find that at the top of the list is someone who was your best friend during your childhood. You know that a friend of yours was in a bad relationship during his university days, until he was arrested for his crimes at the time. However, he later became a righteous man, and he never committed another crime. If you look at his CV you will find that he has not mentioned the incident of his arrest in the column where this information was sought. You know that your company may not hire the arrested person. 
What should you do now as head of the HR department? 
1. Present and let the board decide the matter on the basis of suitability and the basis of the information contained in the records. 
2. Let the board know your friend's truth and let the board decide. 
Please provide appropriate reasons for selecting any options. 
Ans: Declare the conflict of interest, disclose to the board the relationship and the factual background you know, and recuse yourself from the decision-making process.
Reasoning and practical steps:

• Declare Relationship: Inform the board, in writing, that you have a personal relationship with one candidate. Full disclosure maintains transparency and trusted governance.
• Provide Only Factual Information: If asked, share objective facts you know about the earlier arrest and rehabilitation. Do not speculate or personalise the matter; present verifiable details.
• Recuse From Evaluation: Step aside from interviewing, scoring or recommending that candidate so that the selection process remains impartial.
• Allow Board To Decide On Merits: Let the selection committee assess the candidate against policy, background-check outcomes and suitability criteria. If the applicant omitted material facts on the CV, the board may treat this as a disciplinary or integrity issue as per company policy.
• Consider Rehabilitation Factors: Where appropriate, the board should weigh the passage of time, subsequent conduct and any legal record (e.g., conviction, expungement) before reaching a decision.

Conclusion: Option 2 (disclose the truth) combined with recusal is the correct course. This upholds honesty, protects the company's reputation and preserves fairness to the candidate and other applicants.

Case - 5

Q.5. You are an honest man who believes that corruption is the worst crime in India. They fought battles against many corrupt government officials using RTI, and by filing PIL applications in the courts. One day he meets an old friend who has just joined a government department known for its corruption. Invited you to lunch at the five star hotel. After he was drunk, he opened his chest and started talking about corruption in his department. He told you that at first he was hesitant to bribe but gradually, after seeing that everyone in the department was being bribed, he started making money, too. He explained that in his department everyone had to pay a monthly fee to his supervisor. If he fails to pay his supervisor a monthly stipend, he may have his money changed or he may be charged with fraud. 
What should you do? 
1. Record the conversation on your cell phone and report the matter to the CBI. 
2. Tell him not to talk to you about legal matters. 
3. Ask your friend to stop bribery and live an honest life. 
Please provide reasons for accepting or rejecting each option. Give the correct reasons for each option. 
Ans: Handle the matter with a balance of moral duty, prudence and legal propriety: counsel the friend to stop, encourage lawful reporting, and, if necessary, assist in making a formal complaint through proper channels rather than resorting to surreptitious recording.
Explanation and assessment of options:

• Option 1 (Record and report immediately): Secret recording may breach trust and may be inadmissible or legally risky unless done in accordance with law. It also harms personal relationships and may not by itself produce sufficient evidence for prosecution. Hence it is not the first recommended step.
• Option 2 (Tell him not to talk about legal matters): This preserves personal boundaries but is passive. It fails to address ongoing corruption and leaves victims and public interest unprotected. It is inadequate on its own.
• Option 3 (Ask him to stop and persuade him to report): This is the preferred initial approach. Encourage the friend to cease corrupt practices and to report extortion or corruption through internal grievance mechanisms, anti-corruption units, or anonymous whistleblower channels. Offer to accompany him to make a complaint or to advise him on lawful ways to document extortion (receipts, names, dates) which will strengthen any future investigation.

Further steps if the friend refuses to act or if there is an immediate public harm:

• Consider reporting: If corruption is systemic and causes serious public harm, consider filing a complaint with the competent agency (anti-corruption bureau, CBI or Lokayukta) using corroborating evidence, while being mindful of legal admissibility rules.
• Protect the friend: If he fears retaliation, suggest legal protection mechanisms available to whistleblowers and help him seek legal advice.

Conclusion: Begin by counselling and persuading the friend to stop and to report through proper channels (option 3). Use formal reporting (not covert recording) if the friend refuses and evidence of serious, ongoing criminality can be compiled and presented lawfully. This approach balances fidelity to friendship with duty to public interest and the rule of law.