You are the manager of a spare parts company A and you have to negotiate a deal with the manager of a large manufacturing company B. The deal is highly competitive and sealing the deal is critical for your company. The deal is being worked out over a dinner. After dinner the manager of manufacturing company B offered to drop you to the hotel in his car. On the way to the hotel he happens to hit a motorcycle injuring the motorcyclist badly. You know the manager was driving fast and thus lost control. The law enforcement officer comes to investigate the issue and you are the sole eyewitness to it. Knowing the strict laws pertaining to road accidents you are aware that your honest account of the incident would lead to the prosecution of the manager and as a consequence the deal is likely to be jeopardized, which is of immense importance to your company.
What are the dilemmas you face ? What will be your response to the situation ?
Approach · directive: “what are the dilemmas / what will be your response”
What it asks · Name the conflicts of duty you face as the sole eyewitness, and state how you would act.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Name the dilemmas you face as the sole eyewitness to the accident caused by the manager of company B
- State your response to the situation, with reasons
Open with · Truth and the law pull one way; loyalty to the company and courtesy to a business partner pull the other.
Cover
- Dilemma 1: honesty and the duty to help the law and the injured man against the company's interest in a critical deal.
- Dilemma 2: gratitude and courtesy to the manager who offered a lift against justice for an injured stranger.
- Dilemma 3: my job and career against my conscience, including whether a softened account would be 'harmless'.
- First duty: make sure the motorcyclist gets medical help at once by calling an ambulance and staying until it arrives.
- Response: give the officer a truthful, factual account; Section 161 CrPC binds a witness to answer truly, and false information is itself an offence.
- Company: tell my superiors honestly what happened and why, and offer to continue negotiations on merit; a deal that needs a lie is not worth it.
- Long term: trust and reputation are worth more than a single deal, and a partner who respects the law may still do business.
Close with · I would put the injured man's life and the truth first; a deal won by a lie costs more in the end than a deal lost.
Add value (verified)
- Section 161(2), CrPC 1973: a person examined by the police is bound to answer truly all questions relating to the case, except those that would expose him to a criminal charge. Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Indian Kanoon) ↗“Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty”
- Save Life Foundation (Supreme Court, 2016): a bystander or good Samaritan who is also an eyewitness is to be examined on a single occasion, with procedures to prevent harassment. Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India & Anr, Supreme Court, 30 March 2016 — Indian Kanoon ↗“(7) In case a bystander or good Samaritan, who has voluntarily stated that he is also an eye-witness to the accident and is required to be examined for the purposes of investigation by the police or during the trial, such bystander or good Samaritan shall be examined on a single occasion”
- Save Life Foundation (2016): the good Samaritan guidelines are without prejudice to the liability of the driver of a motor vehicle in a road accident under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India & Anr, Supreme Court, 30 March 2016 — Indian Kanoon ↗“The above guidelines in relation to protection of bystander or good Samaritan are without prejudice to the liability of the driver of a motor vehicle in the road accident, as specified under section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”
- Kant: the duty to refrain from making lying promises is a perfect duty to others, derived from the universal-law formula of the Categorical Imperative. Kant's Moral Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗“We will briefly sketch one way of doing so for the perfect duty to others to refrain from making lying promises and the imperfect duty to ourselves to develop our own natural talents.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 384 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
As the sole eyewitness, I hold the fact that decides both a stranger's justice and my company's most important deal. Truth and law pull one way; loyalty and gratitude pull the other.
Stakeholders
- The injured motorcyclist and his family; the manager of company B; my company and its staff; the police and courts; other road users.
The dilemmas I face
- Honesty against loyalty: a truthful statement may cost the deal my company depends on; a false one may save it.
- Gratitude against justice: my host of the evening faces prosecution on my word, while a stranger's relief rests on it.
- Career against conscience: a softened account, 'I did not notice the speed', looks harmless but makes me party to a cover-up.
Options
| Option | Merit | Demerit |
|---|---|---|
| Tell the whole truth | Law, justice, integrity upheld | Deal at risk |
| Shade the account | Deal may survive | False information is an offence; blackmail risk |
| Stay silent | No direct lie | Obstructs justice |
My response
- Victim first: call an ambulance and the police, give first aid and stay; the driver's own duties under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 remain his.
- A truthful statement: Section 161 CrPC binds a person examined by the police to answer truly. I would state the facts, including the speed, without exaggeration; which offence it amounts to is for the police and court.
- Little cost to honesty: the Supreme Court's Save Life Foundation guidelines (2016) let a helper who is also an eyewitness be examined on a single occasion, without harassment.
- Candour all round: tell the manager my account will not change and urge him to pay for the victim's treatment; report everything to my superiors and pursue the deal on merit.
Why
- Kant's test: he treated the duty not to make lying promises as a perfect duty; a lie told for gain cannot become a universal law.
- The business case: a deal built on a lie is a liability; if exposed, the company loses both deal and name, and a partner who wants one lie will want more.
- Integrity is indivisible: courage to tell the truth under pressure is what my company should want in its negotiator.
I would put the injured man's life and the truth first; a deal lost honestly can be won back, while a lie, once told, keeps costing.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.