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.
It asks 2 things — 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 · As the sole eyewitness I hold the fact that decides a stranger's justice and my company's key deal: truth and law against loyalty and gratitude.
Cover
- Dilemmas: honesty against loyalty to the company; gratitude to the host against justice for the victim; the half-truth trap of a softened account.
- Options: tell the whole truth, shade the account or stay silent, each with merits and demerits.
- Victim first: ambulance, police, first aid; the driver's duties under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act stay his.
- Truthful statement: Section 161 CrPC (since then, Section 180 BNSS) binds a person examined by police to answer truly; Save Life Foundation limits harassment.
- Candour: tell the manager my account will not change, brief my superiors and pursue the deal on merit.
- Why: Satyameva Jayate, truth alone triumphs; a deal built on a lie is a liability. Long-term: a company code that no deal justifies a lie.
Close with · I would put the injured man's life and the truth first: a deal lost honestly can be won back, while a lie keeps costing.
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.”
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 180 (examination of witnesses by police): a person examined shall be bound to answer truly, as under Section 161 CrPC before it.The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, MHA) ↗“180. (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly”
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· 378words · Minimalist IAS
As the sole eyewitness, I hold the fact that decides a stranger's justice and my company's key deal: truth and law against loyalty and gratitude.
Stakeholders
- Who is affected: the injured motorcyclist and his family; company B's manager; my company and its staff; police and courts; other road users.
The dilemmas I face
- Honesty against loyalty: the truth may cost the deal my company depends on; a lie may save it.
- Gratitude against justice: my host faces prosecution on my word, while a stranger's relief rests on it.
- The half-truth trap: 'I did not notice the speed' looks harmless but makes me party to a cover-up.
Options, with merits and demerits
| 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 duties under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 remain his.
- A truthful statement: Section 161 CrPC (since then, Section 180 of the BNSS) binds a person examined by the police to answer truly, except self-incriminating questions. I would state the facts, including the speed, and leave the offence to the police and court.
- Little cost to honesty: under the guidelines endorsed in Save Life Foundation (2016), a helper who is also an eyewitness is examined only once, with procedures to prevent harassment.
- Candour all round: tell the manager my account will not change and urge him to fund the victim's treatment; brief my superiors and pursue the deal on merit.
Why this response is right
- Truth as a national value: India's motto, Satyameva Jayate (from the Mundaka Upanishad), means truth alone triumphs; a lie for profit betrays it.
- The business case: a deal built on a lie is a liability: exposure costs deal and name, and a partner who wants one lie will want more.
Long-term: integrity as company policy
- Company code: state that no deal justifies a false statement, add an ethics helpline, and reward negotiators for honest wins.
I would put the injured man's life and the truth first: a deal lost honestly can be won back, while a lie keeps costing.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
