Case Study A woman was in a live-in relationship with her male partner. She complained to the police of sexual harassment and rape continously for the last five years on the pretext of marriage by her partner. The police on prima facie investigation found out that the allegation is false and the couple was living happily until some internal feud developed that led to these baseless allegations. The woman complained to the State Commission for Women and alleged that she did not get justice from the police and they were biased against her due to a patriarchal mindset. She demands justice from the Women Commission. You are the chairperson of the State Commission for Women. (a) What steps will you take in such a situation? (b) Do you think that live-in relationships are against Indian culture and traditional values?

Case Study Sneha Verma, a young and upright IAS officer, is serving as CEO of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) in a drought-prone district of Maharashtra. She is overseeing the implementation of a crucial Rs 50 crore water conservation project under the Jal Shakti Abhiyan, aimed at preventing crop failure and mass migration. While finalizing tenders, the lowest bidder—XYZ Pvt. Ltd.—emerges with strong credentials. However, Sneha is informally warned by colleagues about the firm’s alleged involvement in substandard work and bribery in another state, despite no formal conviction or blacklist status. The situation escalates when a local MLA visits Sneha, subtly pressuring her to award the contract to Saraswati Infra, citing urgency and hinting at consequences for her upcoming transfer. The next morning, she receives an anonymous email with alleged proof of the firm’s manipulated quality reports in previous projects. With villagers anxiously awaiting project execution before the monsoon, Sneha is torn between ensuring integrity and avoiding delays that could harm livelihoods and invite political backlash. Questions (a) Identify and discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. (b) What are the options available to Sneha? Evaluate each of them. What would be the most appropriate course of action for Sneha? (c) In the long run, how should public institutions ensure ethical integrity and transparency in public procurement while balancing the urgency of developmental needs?

Case Study Mr. Chandrakant is a principal in a college. There is a professor who happens to be the brother-in-law of an MLA of the ruling Party. The professor’s behavior towards fellow female teachers and students is derogatory. Several females have accused him of harassing them. The victims have lodged several complaints about his behavior. They are also afraid of filing a police complaint against him as he has threatened them to spoil their career if they do so. Mr. Chandrakant is in a dilemma. He wants to act against the professor, but he also fears the political backlash from the MLA and his party. He knows that the professor is misusing his power and influence to harass the females and violate their dignity and rights. He also knows that the victims are suffering from mental trauma and insecurity due to the professor's actions. 1. What are the ethical issues involved in this case? 2. What are the options available for Mr. Chandrakant? 3. What should Mr. Chandrakant do and why?

Case Study As the District Collector of a Suratwada district, you are overseeing a government-funded rural development project aimed at improving infrastructure. However, you soon discover that several contractors awarded the contracts for building roads, sanitation systems, and affordable housing have strong political ties to local and state-level politicians. These contractors, despite a history of substandard work and financial mismanagement in previous projects, continue to be awarded lucrative tenders due to their political leverage. Upon reviewing the project, you uncover that funds are being misused, with inflated costs and substandard materials being used in construction. Corrupt local officials are found to be complicit in manipulating the approval process. Despite knowing this, you face immense pressure from both your political superiors and influential local figures to allow the project to continue without intervention. Exposing the corruption could stall the project, affecting the district’s development and potentially harming your career, as the political backlash could lead to your transfer or disciplinary action. You are caught in a dilemma: Should you expose the corruption and risk your career and the completion of the project, or turn a blind eye, knowing that doing so would compromise your ethical duty to the public? The decision is further complicated by the knowledge that your actions could affect both the future of the project and your ability to carry out governance in the district. Questions: 1. What options are available to you to ensure that the corruption in the project is thoroughly investigated, while minimizing disruption to public services? 2. What course of action would you take to maintain your integrity and balance the investigation with the need for continued public service delivery? 3. What long-term reforms would you consider implementing in your district to prevent similar situations of corruption in future government projects, and how would you ensure that such reforms gain traction in the face of political and administrative resistance?

Case Study: You are the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of a flood-affected district. Thousands of people have been displaced in the recent floods. The state government has sent an emergency relief fund that is significantly lower than what is required. You are instructed to distribute it “based on urgency and vulnerability.” However, you face the following situation: 1. Village A is politically influential. The local MLA pressures you to allot a major share of relief funds there. He hints that “future cooperation” will depend on your decision. 2. Village B is severely affected, but it has poor road connectivity. Delivering aid there will take extra time and resources. 3. Village C has fewer casualties but houses a large migrant labour population that lacks documents required for official relief distribution. 4. Your field staff privately suggests that you divert some funds for logistics (vehicles, fuel, meals). Official guidelines prohibit this, but without these expenses, delivery to remote areas will be delayed. 5. The media is reporting that the administration is “slow and careless,” adding further pressure. You must decide how to allocate the limited resources fairly, efficiently, and ethically, while handling political pressure, administrative constraints, and humanitarian concerns. Question: Q1. Identify the major ethical issues involved in this situation. Q2. As the SDM, outline the options available to you. Evaluate each option using ethical principles. Q3. What would be your final course of action? Justify your decision with proper reasoning, referencing ethical theories and principles of public service.