Maruti is working as deputy secretary in Uttar Pradesh’s revenue department, dealing with grants of government land for various purposes. As land has become very scarce and very expensive, such grants have to be carefully made. The government has formulated a policy for the grant of its land for public purposes. The Government’s policy has been that government lands can be granted for purposes such as public educational institutions, hostels, hospitals, charitable institutions, government offices and rural infrastructure. Further, land could be given to private parties in a few cases for institutions that undertake programmes of education, health and skill up-gradation for weaker sections of society. One day a proposal for granting land to a cultural centre proposed in a prime urban location reached Maruti’s desk. The centre was not proposed by the state culture department, but by a private group. As Maruti was reading the file, he received a phone call from the Revenue minister’s private secretary that the person who wants to set up the centre is closely related to a prominent central leader of the ruling political establishment. The private secretary added that the proposal was cleared by the lower levels in the department and that Maruti should also endorse it positively. Maruti saw that the proposal could not be cleared under the government’s policy. The lower level staff justified the proposal since the official policy resolution contained a residual phrase that grants can be made for “other public purposes as may be decided by the government”. Maruti feared that the grant of valuable land to a private person with political connections could lead to controversy. In this situation, what should be the correct course of action and why?

Case Study A woman and her male partner were living together in a live-in relationship. She faced physical and mental harassment by her partner for some years under the pretense of marriage by her spouse. This relationship continued for some time until one day police recovered a bag with a dead body nearby a river. After conducting a preliminary inquiry, the police discovered that her live-in partner had murdered her. Earlier, the woman's family had protested against her live-in relationship status and after this incident, there have been huge protests in the state against live-in relationships and people who are living with their live in partners are being threatened by various peer groups, religious groups etc. have come together and demanded from the state government to bring a law to ban live-in relationships in the whole state, claiming that the live-in relationships are against Indian culture. As senior police officer in your area how would you handle the situation and what steps would you take to resolve the issue?

Case Study Shradha Sharma is a senior civil servant in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. She has been working for the past 20 years and has a reputation for being honest, competent, and impartial. Her department has been tasked with granting environmental clearances to a large corporation that wants to build a new factory in a forest area. Shradha Sharma knows that the project could have serious environmental impacts, including deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and pollution. She also knows that the corporation has a history of flouting environmental norms and regulations in other parts of the country. Shradha Sharma is under intense pressure from the corporation to grant the clearance, as it would create thousands of jobs and bring in large investments. On the other hand, she is also under pressure from environmental activists and NGOs who are urging her to reject the clearance, citing the potential environmental and social costs. Shradha Sharma is facing dilemma between her duty as a public servant to promote development and create jobs, and her duty to protect the environment and safeguard the interests of the local communities. She has to decide whether to grant or reject the environmental clearance, and her decision will have far-reaching consequences. Q. What factors should Ms. Sharma consider in making her decision? What are the possible solutions to this ethical dilemma, and what are the trade-offs involved in each solution?

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 You are an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer posted in a developing country that is known for its human rights violations and corruption. Your job is to represent India's interests and promote friendly relations with the host country. However, you find that your host country's government is involved in several unethical practices, including suppression of political dissent, censorship of media, and siphoning off foreign aid. One day, you receive a confidential report from your embassy that confirms the host country's government's involvement in illegal activities, including money laundering, trafficking of drugs and arms, and supporting terrorist organizations. The report also states that some Indian companies are indirectly involved in these illegal activities by providing them with funding and logistics support. Q. In this scenario, what would you do as an IFS officer, and how would you justify your actions ethically?

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 You are a junior officer in a government department that deals with food distribution schemes. You have been working under a senior officer who is respected and admired for his efficiency and honesty. However, one day you come across some documents that reveal that he has been siphoning off funds from the schemes for his personal use. You are shocked and confused by this discovery. What would you do in this situation and why?