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?
Approach · directive: “discuss / critically examine / which”
What it asks · Identify the issues of confidential information, conflict of interest and political favouritism; weigh Subash’s options; and justify the most appropriate one.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case
- (b) Critically examine the options available to Subash
- (c) Which option is most appropriate, and why
Open with · The crux, family and political loyalty versus duty to the public, and the Arthashastra's test of ministers' character by offering temptations.
Cover
- Stakeholders: landowners along the alignment, honest bidders, taxpayers, Subash's family and the Minister himself.
- (a) Issues as value conflicts: confidentiality vs filial affection, family gain vs public interest, merit vs favouritism, neutrality vs loyalty, private profit vs public cost.
- (b) Share the location with his son: breach of conduct rules, possible criminal misconduct, blackmail risk. Reject.
- (b) Oblige the Minister's nephew: vitiates the tender, with legal and reputational ruin. Reject. Refusing both but staying silent leaves the pressure unrecorded.
- (b) Refuse both and act formally: integrity with a written record, at the cost of family strain and a possible transfer.
- (c) Refuse his son; declare the conflict and recuse; tell the Minister the tender will be open; restrict project data; escalate if pressed.
- Systemic fix: need-to-know alignments until notification, a watch on unusual land registrations along the corridor, and published tender criteria.
Close with · Integrity proved under pressure: guarding information, disclosing conflicts and insisting on open process protect the public interest, the family's good name and even the Minister.
Add value (verified)
- AIS (Conduct) Rules, Rule 3(2B)(iv)-(v): decide solely in public interest; declare private interests relating to public duties and resolve conflicts to protect the public interest.All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, Rule 3(2B) — Tripura High Court (thc.nic.in) ↗“(iv) take decisions solely in public interest and use or cause to use public resources efficiently, effectively and economically; (v) declare any private interests relating to his public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts in a way that protects the public interest;”
- AIS (Conduct) Rules, Rule 3(2B)(vii)-(viii): no decisions to benefit self, family or friends; decisions on merit alone.All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, Rule 3(2B) — thc.nic.in ↗“(vii) not misuse his position as civil servant and not take decisions in order to derive financial or material benefits for himself, his family or his friends; (viii) make choices, take decisions and make recommendations on merit alone;”
- AIS (Conduct) Rules, Rule 9: no member shall communicate official information to anyone not authorised to receive it.All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, Rule 9 — thc.nic.in ↗“9. Unauthorised communication of information.— No member of the Service shall except in accordance with any general or special order of the Government or in the performance in good faith of duties assigned to him, communicate directly or indirectly any official document or part thereof or information to any Government servant or any other person to whom he is not authorised to”
- 2nd ARC (Ethics in Governance, Ch. 9): a civil servant must implement the orders of government without bias, with honesty and without fear or favour.2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (2007), Ch. 9 — DARPG (archived) ↗“A civil servant is required to implement the orders of government without bias, with honesty and without fear or favour.”
- Kautilya (Arthashastra, Book I Ch. X) prescribes examining ministers' character by offering temptations.Kautilya's Arthashastra, tr. R. Shamasastry, Book I Ch. X — archive.org ↗“ASCERTAINING BY TEMPTATIONS PURITY OR IMPURITY IN THE CHARACTER OF MINISTERS. ASSISTED by his prime minister (mantri) and his high priest, the king shall, by offering temptations, examine the character of ministers (amdtya) appointed in government departments of ordinary nature.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 362words · Minimalist IAS
Family and political loyalty versus duty to the public: Subash holds price-sensitive information, pressed by his son's profit motive and his Minister's favouritism. The Arthashastra examines ministers' character "by offering temptations"; this is that test.
Stakeholders
- Affected: landowners along the alignment, honest bidders, taxpayers, Subash's family and the Minister himself.
(a) Ethical issues involved
- Confidentiality versus filial affection: the All India Services (Conduct) Rules bar communicating official information to anyone not authorised to receive it; leaking the location is insider abuse of office.
- Family gain versus public interest: the rules require him to declare private interests linked to his duties and forbid decisions that benefit "his family or his friends".
- Merit versus favouritism: steering the project to the Minister's nephew rigs procurement; the rules demand decisions "on merit alone".
- Neutrality versus loyalty: the 2nd ARC expects civil servants to implement orders "without fear or favour"; loyalty is owed to lawful policy, not to a Minister's private interest.
- Private profit versus public cost: speculation inflates land prices, raising acquisition costs and hurting small landowners.
(b) Options critically examined
- Share the location with his son: family peace, but a breach of confidentiality and conduct rules, possible criminal misconduct and lifelong blackmail risk. Reject.
- Oblige the Minister's nephew: keeps the Minister's favour, but vitiates the tender and exposes everyone to legal and reputational ruin. Reject.
- Refuse both, stay silent: clean hands, yet the pressure persists and the Minister's improper instruction goes unrecorded.
- Refuse both and act formally: integrity with a written record; the costs are family strain and a possible transfer.
(c) Most appropriate course and why
- Refuse son, explain the law
- Declare conflict, recuse
- Tell Minister: open tender
- Restrict project data
- Escalate if pressed
- Why: it guards confidentiality, satisfies the conduct rules and keeps competition fair; the written record protects Subash, and open e-procurement still meets the Minister's legitimate aim of speed. Courage with courtesy.
Systemic fix
- Prevent recurrence: keep alignments need-to-know until formal notification, watch unusual land registrations along the corridor, and publish tender criteria.
Integrity is proved under pressure: by guarding information, disclosing conflicts and insisting on open process, Subash protects the public interest, his family's good name and even his Minister.
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.
