General Studies 2025 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q9

Subash is Secretary, PWD in the State Government. He is a senior officer, known for his competence, integrity and dedication to work. He enjoys the trust and confidence of Minister Incharge of PWD and Programme Implementation. As a part of his job profile, he is responsible for policy formulation, execution of projects relating to infrastructure initiatives in the State. Besides, he oversees the technical and administrative aspects relating to planning, designing and construction etc. Subash's Minister is an important Minister in the state and significant growth in urban infrastructure development and road network has been registered during his tenure. He is very keen for launching of ambitious road construction project in the near future. Subash is in regular touch with the Minister and is working various modalities of road construction project. Regular meetings, interactions and presentations are made by him to the Minister before a formal public announcement of the project is made by the Minister. Subash's only son Vikas is in real estate business. His son from his own sources is aware that a mega road project is on the anvil and announcement in this regard is expected anytime. He is very keen to know from his father the exact location of the upcoming project. He knows that there would be quantum jump in the prices of land in the vicinity. Buying land at this stage at cheaper prices would pay him rich dividends. He is pleading with him (his father) day in and day out to share him location of the proposed project. He assured him that he would handle the matter discretely as it would not attract any adverse notice as he in the normal course, keeps on buying land as a part of his business. He feels pressurised because of constant pleadings by his son. Another significant aspect of the matter pertained to the extra/undue interest in the above project by the Minister PWD. His nephew was also having big infrastructure project company. In fact, the Minister has also introduced his nephew to him and indicated to him to take care of his nephew's business interest in the forthcoming project. The Minister encouraged him to act fast in the matter as early announcement and execution of mega road project would enhance his status in the party and public life. In the above backdrop, Subash is in a fix as to the future course of action. (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. (b) Critically examine the options available to Subash in the above situation. (c) Which of the above would be most appropriate and why ?

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

सुभाष राज्य सरकार में लोकनिर्माण विभाग के सचिव हैं। वह एक वरिष्ठ अधिकारी हैं, जो अपनी योग्यता, निष्ठा और काम के प्रति समर्पण के लिए जाने जाते हैं। उन्हें लोकनिर्माण विभाग और कार्यक्रम कार्यान्वयन के प्रभारी मंत्री का भरोसा और विश्वास प्राप्त है। अपनी जॉब प्रोफाइल के अलावा वह राज्य में नीति निर्माण के लिए भी जिम्मेदार हैं। इसके अलावा, वह योजना, डिजाइनिंग और निर्माण आदि से संबंधित तकनीकी और प्रशासनिक पहलुओं की देखरेख करते हैं। सुभाष के मंत्री राज्य के एक महत्वपूर्ण मंत्री हैं और उनके कार्यकाल के दौरान शहरी बुनियादी ढांचे के विकास और सड़क नेटवर्क में महत्वपूर्ण वृद्धि दर्ज की गई है। वह निकट भविष्य में महत्वाकांक्षी सड़क निर्माण परियोजना शुरू करने के लिए उत्सुक हैं। सुभाष मंत्री के साथ नियमित संपर्क में हैं और सड़क निर्माण परियोजना के विभिन्न तौर-तरीकों पर काम कर रहे हैं। मंत्री द्वारा परियोजना की औपचारिक सार्वजनिक घोषणा करने से पहले उनके द्वारा मंत्री के समक्ष नियमित बैठकें, चर्चाएं और प्रस्तुतियाँ की जाती हैं। सुभाष का इकलौता बेटा विकास रियल एस्टेट बिजनेस में है। उनके बेटे को अपने सूत्रों से पता चलता है कि एक मेगा रोड परियोजना अंतिम चरण पर है और इस संबंध में किसी भी समय घोषणा होने की उम्मीद है। वह अपने पिता से आगामी प्रोजेक्ट का सटीक स्थान जानने के लिए बहुत उत्सुक है। उसे पता है कि आसपास की जमीन की कीमतों में भारी उछाल आएगा। इस स्तर पर सस्ती कीमतों पर जमीन खरीदने से उसे भरपूर लाभ मिलेगा। वह प्रस्तावित परियोजना का स्थान दिखाने के लिए दिन-रात अपने पिता से विनती कर रहा है। उसने उन्हें आश्वस्त किया कि वह इस मामले को सीधे संभालेगा क्योंकि इससे कोई प्रतिकूल असर नहीं पड़ेगा। यह इसलिए कि वह स्वाभाविक रूप से अपने व्यवसाय के हिस्से के रूप में जमीन खरीदता रहता है। अपने बेटे की लगातार मिन्नतों के कारण वह दबाव महसूस करते हैं। इस मामले का एक अन्य महत्वपूर्ण पहलू लोक निर्माण विभाग के मंत्री द्वारा उपर्युक्त परियोजना में अतिरिक्त/अनुचित रुचि से संबंधित है। उनके भतीजे की भी बड़ी आधारभूत संरचनावाली परियोजना कंपनी थी। दरअसल, मंत्री ने अपने भतीजे का भी उनसे परिचय कराया है और उन्हें आगामी प्रोजेक्ट में भतीजे के व्यावसायिक हितों का ध्यान रखने का संकेत भी दिया है। मंत्री ने उन्हें इस मामले में तेजी से काम करने के लिए प्रोत्साहित किया क्योंकि मेगा रोड परियोजना की शीघ्र घोषणा और कार्यान्वयन से अपनी पार्टी और सार्वजनिक जीवन में उनकी स्थिति मजबूत होगी। उपर्युक्त पृष्ठभूमि में सुभाष भावी कार्रवाई को लेकर असमंजस में हैं। (a) उक्त मामले में शामिल नैतिक मुद्दों पर चर्चा कीजिए। (b) उपर्युक्त स्थिति में सुभाष के पास उपलब्ध विकल्पों का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (c) उपर्युक्त में से कौन सा सर्वाधिक उपयुक्त होगा और क्यों?

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically examine' for part (b) demands balanced evaluation of options with their merits and demerits, while 'discuss' for part (a) requires comprehensive coverage of ethical dimensions, and part (c) needs reasoned justification. Allocate approximately 35% words to part (a) identifying conflicts of interest, insider trading risks, and political pressure; 40% to part (b) examining 4-5 options with critical analysis; and 25% to part (c) with decisive recommendation backed by ethical reasoning. Structure: brief context → systematic part-wise response → value-based conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Conflict of interest (son's real estate business vs. official position), misuse of insider information (unpublished government project details), nepotism and undue political influence (Minister's nephew), erosion of public trust and institutional integrity
  • Part (a): Violation of RTI Act provisions on confidentiality, breach of conduct rules under All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, and ethical compromise of integrity, objectivity and accountability
  • Part (b): Option of complete disclosure to son with rationalization, Option of partial/non-disclosure maintaining confidentiality, Option of seeking formal recusal from project, Option of reporting Minister's undue interest to higher authorities/CM, Option of documented refusal with preventive measures
  • Part (b): Critical evaluation weighing personal loyalty vs. public duty, legal consequences under Prevention of Corruption Act, career risks vs. moral courage, and long-term reputational damage
  • Part (c): Selection of most appropriate option with justification based on constitutional values (Article 311 protection for good faith actions), ethical theories (deontology over utilitarianism), and administrative precedents
  • Part (c): Implementation strategy including written record maintenance, informal persuasion of Minister, and institutional safeguards like asset disclosure

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Correctly interprets 'discuss' for part (a) as comprehensive exploration of multiple ethical dimensions, 'critically examine' for part (b) as balanced evaluation with pros/cons of each option, and part (c) as reasoned decision-making with justification; maintains appropriate depth balance across all three parts without conflating directivesPartially understands directives—treats 'discuss' descriptively without depth, or 'critically examine' as mere listing without evaluation; some imbalance in part weightage with one part significantly underdevelopedMisinterprets directives—treats all parts identically, confuses 'critically examine' with 'describe', or completely misses the evaluative demand; severe imbalance with one part dominating or omitted
Content depth & accuracy20%4Demonstrates precise understanding of conflict of interest types (actual, potential, perceived), insider trading provisions under SEBI Act and Prevention of Corruption Act, political neutrality principles; accurately applies 2nd ARC recommendations on ethics in governance and Lokpal Act provisions on public servantsCovers basic ethical issues but conflates conflict of interest with corruption, misses distinction between personal and institutional conflict; generic treatment of legal framework without specific provisionsSuperficial or inaccurate content—misidentifies ethical issues, confuses son's request with legitimate business activity, ignores Minister's role entirely; factually wrong on legal provisions or institutional mechanisms
Structure & flow20%4Clear tripartite structure with explicit headings for (a), (b), (c); logical progression from issue identification → option evaluation → decision justification; smooth transitions between ethical analysis, practical options, and recommended course; integrated conclusion reinforcing public service valuesBasic structure present but parts bleed into each other; some logical gaps between ethical issues identified and options proposed; conclusion generic without synthesis of preceding analysisDisorganized or stream-of-consciousness response; no clear demarcation between parts; random arrangement of points; missing or abrupt conclusion without connection to body
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites relevant precedents like Sanjeev Bhatt case (conflict of interest), 2nd ARC 4th Report recommendations on 'Ethics in Governance', Vishaka guidelines on workplace pressure, comparable international examples (UK Nolan Principles on selflessness/integrity); references specific conduct rules (Rule 3, 4 of AIS Conduct Rules)Mentions generic examples like 2nd ARC without specificity, or cites personal anecdotes; limited case-law with vague references; misses opportunity to ground analysis in established administrative precedentsNo examples or completely irrelevant ones; fabricated case-law; examples contradict the argument made; misses all opportunity to strengthen analysis with institutional memory
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Part (c) presents decisive, ethically grounded choice (typically non-disclosure + recusal + documented reporting) with multi-layered justification—deontological duty, consequentialist harm prevention, virtue ethics of integrity; acknowledges practical risks but prioritizes public interest; ends with broader reflection on civil servant's moral compassPart (c) recommendation present but weakly justified or evasive ('balance between personal and professional'); conclusion restates points without synthesis; avoids taking clear stance on difficult trade-offsPart (c) missing, or recommends unethical/illegal option (disclosing to son); conclusion absent or contradictory to body; no analytical depth—purely descriptive ending; fails to demonstrate value-based decision-making expected of future administrator

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2025 GS Paper IV