Case Study You are the head of a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that offers palliative care to cancer patients from the poor sections of the society. Since the last few months funding for your noble cause is dwindling due to which you are not able to fulfill the needs of the dependent people. One day, you are contacted by the owner of a big tobacco company who is willing to fund your NGO because he has to meet Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) targets. However, over the years working with cancer patients you have developed a deep hatred for tobacco companies. Now, the owner’s offer has put you in a moral dilemma. On the one side, you detest the thought of accepting support from a company that is doling out cancer through its products, and on the other hand, you feel that the company's aid is a godsend opportunity for your NGO to provide better care to patients. (a) What are the various ethical issues involved here? (b) Will it be morally right for you to accept money from the tobacco company?

Case Study There is a disaster-prone state having frequent landslides, forest fires, cloudbursts, flash floods and earthquakes, etc. Some of these are seasonal and often unpredictable. The magnitude of the disaster is always unanticipated. During one of the seasons a cloudburst caused devastating floods and landslides leading to high causalities. There was major damage to infrastructure like roads, bridges and power generating units. This led to more than a lakh pilgrims, tourists and other locals trapped across different routes and locations. The people trapped in your area of responsibility includes senior citizens, patients in hospitals, women and children, hikers, tourists, ruling party’s regional president along with his family, additional chief secretary of the neighboring state and prisoners in jail. As a civil services officer of the state, what would be the order in which you would rescue these people and why? Give justifications.

Case Study As the Superintendent of Police in Reasi, you have just received a distressing report about a terrorist attack on a bus carrying pilgrims. The strike, which claimed the lives of nine civilians, has sent shockwaves through the region, shattering the relative calm that had prevailed in recent years. The timing of the attack could not be more precarious, as the region gears up for the upcoming assembly elections. You now find yourself at a critical juncture, tasked with immediate relief measures and devising a comprehensive strategy to address this resurgence of terrorist activities while maintaining law and order and ensuring the safety of civilians. Political tensions are running high, and any misstep in your response could have far-reaching consequences for the entire Union Territory. 1. What are the key stakeholders involved in this case? 2. What will be your immediate course of action as the Superintendent of Police? 3. What will be your long-term strategy to address the resurgence of terrorist activities and maintain peace in the region?

Case Study Ritika Sharma, the District Magistrate of a rapidly developing district, is confronted with worrying reports of a steady rise in drug use among students and young professionals. Over the past few weeks, multiple incidents have raised alarms: five college students were admitted to the district hospital after consuming synthetic drugs at a birthday party; police intercepted a courier parcel containing narcotics disguised as health supplements; and several school counsellors reported behavioural changes and absenteeism linked to possible substance abuse. Preliminary investigations reveal that drugs are being distributed through encrypted messaging apps and anonymous digital wallets. Intelligence inputs point toward a network involving a local nightclub owner, a few influential businessmen, and some college staff who allegedly “look the other way” during campus events. Ritika proposes a plan involving targeted NDPS enforcement, surprise inspections, mandatory counselling sessions in institutions, and collaboration with parents and community groups. However, as soon as the proposal is made public, pushback begins. Parents’ associations accuse the administration of “criminalising youth experimentation” and argue that harsh action may stigmatise students. The nightclub and hospitality lobby warns that raids and strict policing will harm the district’s business climate. A few NGOs frame the administration’s approach as intrusive and insist that addiction should be treated primarily as a health and rights-based issue. Local media channels run debates portraying the crackdown as moral policing rather than a public safety necessity. Politically connected individuals try to influence Ritika, advising her to avoid taking decisions that may create controversy before the upcoming local elections. Simultaneously, the district’s anti-narcotics unit warns that delay could allow the emerging drug network to become entrenched. Medical professionals highlight a sharp increase in substance-related emergency cases and caution that untreated early-stage addiction can quickly escalate. Ritika finds herself torn between safeguarding youth welfare and respecting personal freedoms, between enforcing the law firmly and adopting a compassionate, rehabilitation-oriented approach. She is aware that her decision will have long-term implications for public health, administrative credibility, and trust between the youth and the state. Questions 1. What are the main ethical dilemmas Ritika faces in this situation? 2. Identify and analyse the conflicting values and principles involved in this case. 3. Evaluate the possible courses of action available to Ritika and their likely consequences. 4. What should be Ritika’s most ethical and administratively sound course of action to address the rising drug problem?

Case Study You work in a government office, and due to your expertise and trustworthiness, you have been selected to serve on election duty. Your role involves ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process by overseeing the polling station operations, maintaining the voting machines, and monitoring the conduct of election officials. During the election, you observe a fellow election official who happens to be your good friend engaging in misconduct. The official is manipulating the voting process by favouring a particular political party, allowing unauthorized individuals to vote multiple times, and suppressing votes from certain demographics. You are aware that the actions of this official compromise the integrity of the election and violate the principles of fairness and impartiality. How do you balance your duty to the election process with potential personal consequences?