GS Paper IV 2018 · Q4 (Section A)
2 parts · 10 marks and 150 words each Ethics in public administration X-Ray · Core #1Q4(a) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
“In doing a good thing, everything is permitted which is not prohibited expressly or by clear implication.” Examine the statement with suitable examples in the context of a public servant discharging his/her duties.
Approach · directive: “examine (with suitable examples)”
What it asks · Test, with examples, how far a public servant pursuing a good end may do whatever no law forbids expressly or by clear implication, and give a reasoned verdict.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- Examine where the statement holds for a public servant, with examples
- Examine its limits, express and implied, with examples
- Give a reasoned verdict
Open with · The statement gives a public servant a wide licence: any good act is allowed unless a law forbids it, expressly or by clear implication; Indian public law accepts half of it.
Cover
- Where it holds: Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955), the executive need not wait for a law already in existence; Punjab's nationalisation of school textbooks by executive order infringed no fundamental right.
- Express limit: the same judgment, the executive can never go against the Constitution or any law.
- Implied limit, rights: Bharat Singh (1967), any act that prejudices a person needs legislative authority; clearing hawkers to beautify a road.
- Implied limit, fairness: Maneka Gandhi (1978), a hearing implied though the Passports Act was silent.
- Verdict: valid only for acts within mandate that burden no one's rights and are proportionate, transparent and recorded.
Close with · Ambedkar's warning that one can pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration; initiative must honour its spirit, not only its letter.
Add value (verified)
- Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (Supreme Court, 12 April 1955): the executive can never go against the Constitution or any law, but it does not follow that a law must already exist before the executive can function.Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court, 12 April 1955 — Indian Kanoon ↗“The executive Government, however, can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law. This is clear from the provisions of article 154 of the Constitution but, as we have already stated, it does not follow from this that in order to enable the executive to function there must be a law already in existence”
- In the same case, the Punjab Government's notifications and acts nationalising school textbooks were found to infringe no fundamental right of the petitioners, so the petition failed.Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court, 12 April 1955 — Indian Kanoon ↗“As in our view the petitioners have no fundamental right in the present case which can be said to have been infringed by the action of the Government, the petition is bound to fail on that ground.”
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh (Supreme Court, 23 January 1967): under the rule of law, every act of the Government or its officers that is to operate to the prejudice of any person must be supported by some legislative authority.State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh, Supreme Court, 23 January 1967 — Indian Kanoon ↗“We have adopted under our Constitution not the continental system but the British system under which the rule of law prevails. Every Act done by the Government or by its officers must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, be supported by some legislative authority.”
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 25 January 1978): though the Passports Act, 1967 had no express provision for a hearing before a passport is impounded, that was not conclusive; even when the statute is silent, the law may imply the principle.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 25 January 1978 — Indian Kanoon ↗“it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication”
- B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly (4 November 1948): it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution without changing its form, merely by changing the form of the administration so that it opposes the spirit of the Constitution.Constituent Assembly Debates, 4 November 1948 — constitutionofindia.net (CAD text) ↗“The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 224words · Minimalist IAS
The statement gives a public servant a wide licence: any good act is allowed unless a law forbids it, expressly or by clear implication. Indian public law accepts half of it.
- Where it holds: the executive need not wait for 'a law already in existence' before acting (Ram Jawaya Kapur, 1955): Punjab's nationalisation of school textbooks by executive order survived challenge, infringing no fundamental right. A collector opening schools as flood shelters acts in this space.
- Express limit: the same judgment holds that the executive 'can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any law'.
- Implied limit, rights: an official act that will 'operate to the prejudice of any person' must 'be supported by some legislative authority' (Bharat Singh, 1967); clearing hawkers to beautify a road needs legal backing and due process.
- Implied limit, fairness: though the Passports Act said nothing on hearing a holder before impounding a passport, Maneka Gandhi (1978) held that the law may imply a hearing where a statute is silent.
Verdict: valid only for acts within one's mandate that burden no one's rights and are proportionate, transparent and recorded; silence in the rules invites judgement, not zeal.
Ambedkar warned that one can 'pervert the Constitution, without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration'; initiative must honour its spirit, not only its letter.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
Q4(b) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
With regard to morality of actions, one view is that means are of paramount importance and the other view is that the ends justify the means. Which view do you think is more appropriate? Justify your answer.
Approach · directive: “which view do you think is more appropriate; justify”
What it asks · Choose between 'means are paramount' and 'the ends justify the means', and justify the choice with reasons and examples, giving the other view its due.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- Set out the two views on the morality of actions
- State which view is more appropriate
- Justify the choice with reasons and examples
Open with · Machiavelli's view that in the actions of princes one judges by the result, so the winner's means will always be considered honest, against Gandhi's: means and end share the same inviolable connection as a seed and a tree.
Cover
- A table compares the two views by test, strength and risk.
- My view: in public life the means-first view is more appropriate, with ends guiding the choice among legitimate means.
- Means shape the end: Gandhi called off the Non-Cooperation Movement after the violence at Chauri Chaura in 1922.
- Results uncertain, harm certain: fake encounters, which the Supreme Court in Prakash Kadam (2011) called cold-blooded murder; legitimacy rests on law and trust.
- Where ends count: Weber's ethic of responsibility and its account of foreseeable results, as in disaster triage; ends rank lawful options only.
Close with · Weber: the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather supplements; a public servant holds firm on means and answers for results.
Add value (verified)
- Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. XVIII (tr. W.K. Marriott): in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, one judges by the result; let a prince win and hold his state, and the means will always be considered honest.Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, tr. W.K. Marriott — Project Gutenberg e-text ↗“in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result. For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody”
- Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (ch. 16, Brute Force): the means may be likened to a seed and the end to a tree, with an inviolable connection between them.Hind Swaraj, Chapter XVI: Brute Force — M.K. Gandhi, mkgandhi.org ↗“The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.”
- Supreme Court, Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (13 May 2011): fake encounters are cold-blooded murder by those meant to uphold the law, and policemen proved guilty deserve the harshest punishment.Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, Supreme Court, 13 May 2011 — Indian Kanoon ↗“Fake `encounters' are nothing but cold blooded, brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law.”
- Max Weber, 'Politics as a Vocation' (1919), as quoted in a University of Ottawa thesis: conduct under the ethic of responsibility must give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action, unlike conduct under the maxim of ultimate ends.Genevieve Brassard, Max Weber and the Moral Dimensions of Politics as a Vocation (MA thesis, University of Ottawa, 2012), quoting Weber (1958a, p. 120) ↗“there is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of ultimate ends –that is, in religious terms, ‘The Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord’ – and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one’s action.”
- Weber, 'Politics as a Vocation' (as quoted in the same thesis): the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but supplements, which together make a person fit for the calling of politics.Genevieve Brassard, Max Weber and the Moral Dimensions of Politics as a Vocation (MA thesis, University of Ottawa, 2012), quoting Weber (1958a, p. 127) ↗“an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts but rather supplements, which only in unison constitute a genuine man - a man who can have the ‘calling for politics’.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 224words · Minimalist IAS
Machiavelli held that in the actions of princes 'one judges by the result', so the winner's 'means will always be considered honest'. Gandhi held the opposite: means and end share 'the same inviolable connection' as a seed and a tree.
| Aspect | Means are paramount | Ends justify means |
|---|---|---|
| Test | Duty, rights, dignity | Net good of outcomes |
| Strength | Protects the individual | Flexible in crises |
|---|---|---|
| Risk | Rigidity | Rights sacrificed for results |
My view: in public life the means-first view is more appropriate; ends guide the choice among legitimate means.
- Means shape the end: after peasants torched the police station at Chauri Chaura in 1922, Gandhi called off the Non-Cooperation Movement altogether rather than let violence carry it.
- Results are uncertain, harm is certain: fake encounters promise order but are, in the Supreme Court's words, 'cold blooded, brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law' (Prakash Kadam, 2011).
- Legitimacy: State authority rests on law and trust; tainted means corrode both, even when results look good.
- Where ends count: Weber's ethic of responsibility demands an account of 'the foreseeable results of one's action', as in disaster triage; but ends rank lawful options, never license unlawful ones.
Weber saw the ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility as 'not absolute contrasts but rather supplements': a public servant holds firm on means and answers for results.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
