Revision summary
Dilemmas: an honest account may prosecute the driver and sink a critical deal; silence or a lie may save the deal and abandon the rider. Stakeholders include the victim, both firms, the officer and future road users. Rejected options are amnesia, a silence-for-signature bargain, and flight. Response is medical help, a true statement of speed and loss of control, no coaching, and honest report to one's own company. A deal that requires perjury is not a deal worth keeping.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
A bleeding stranger, a speeding host, and a deal that your firm needs are three duties in one car. The law of the road does not pause because a purchase order is unsigned.
Body
Stakeholders
- The injured motorcyclist, whose life and evidence window are closing.
- The manager of company B, who drove fast and lost control.
- You as the sole eyewitness and as manager of company A.
- Company A's workers and owners, who need the deal.
- Company B's owners, who did not authorise a hit-and-lie.
- The investigating officer and the court, who need a true witness.
- Other road users, who will meet this driver again if tonight is buried.
Ethical issues and values
- Right to life and justice for the injured versus loyalty to a commercial deal.
- Truth-telling versus a profitable silence.
- Integrity: an eyewitness who lies is an accessory to a false case, not a clever negotiator.
- Conflict of interest: your firm's gain is now tied to a man's escape from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and criminal law.
- Compassion for the victim first; even the driver is a person, but he is not entitled to your perjury.
Dilemmas
- Truth versus deal: an honest statement may end the dinner contract and hurt your plant; a lie may save the contract and bury the rider.
- Loyalty to employer versus loyalty to law: the company pays your salary; it did not buy your tongue.
- Gratitude versus justice: he offered a lift; a lift is not a right to your silence.
- Certainty versus fear: you saw speed and loss of control; a lawyer may later twist you; fear of cross-examination is not a moral veto.
- Immediate rescue versus remaining to watch the story: if you only "manage the deal" while the rider bleeds, you have already chosen.
Options
- Option 1: Tell the officer you saw nothing, or that the motorcyclist was at fault, to save the deal.
- Merit: possible contract.
- Demerit: false evidence, possible later prosecution of you, and a victim without a witness. Rejected.
- Option 2: Bargain privately: you will stay silent if he signs tonight.
- Merit: looks like leverage.
- Demerit: extortion wearing a contract; still a lie to the police. Rejected.
- Option 3: Flee the scene to "avoid involvement".
- Merit: none that is ethical.
- Demerit: illegal and cowardly; you were in the car.
- Option 4: Ensure medical help, give a true statement of speed and loss of control, cooperate, inform your own company honestly, and pursue the deal later through another officer of B if B is still a lawful firm.
- Merit: life, law, and a clean career.
- Demerit: this deal may die; that is a cost, not a duty to lie.
Response
- First, the person on the road: first aid, 112 / 108, do not let the car leave if it is needed as evidence and if staying is safe.
- Do not accept coaching in the back seat. If he asks you to "say the brakes failed" or "the rider came from nowhere" when that is false, refuse once, clearly.
- To the law-enforcement officer: state what you perceived — high speed, loss of control, your position as passenger, lighting and road as you remember. Do not add what you did not see. Do not subtract the speed.
- You are not the judge of sentence. You are a witness. Strict accident law is the legislature's choice; it is not yours to nullify for a spare-parts order.
- Inform your senior in company A the same night: the deal is at risk because of an accident and because you will not lie. Ask to reopen with B's leadership, not with a frightened manager's secret.
- If B's firm punishes the truth by killing a lawful contract, that is information about B's ethics. A deal bought with perjury would have been a bad partner anyway.
- Do not sell the story to a newspaper for pressure. Process first.
- Support the victim's hospitalisation as a human being if you can do so without contaminating evidence or seeming to buy silence.
Justification
- The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions on rash driving exist so that a commercial dinner is not a licence to maim.
- Professional ethics for a manager includes not committing or abetting an offence in the firm's name.
- The stem's "immense importance" of the deal is a test of whether importance can launder a lie. It cannot.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD HIT[Speeding hit] --> LIFE[Aid the rider] HIT --> DIL[Truth versus deal] DIL --> TRUE[Honest eyewitness account] DIL --> LIE[Save the contract] LIE --> CRIME[False evidence] TRUE --> LATER[Deal via clean channel or no deal]
Conclusion
The dilemmas are truth versus contract, gratitude versus justice, and employer loyalty versus the injured stranger. Rescue, tell the speed as you saw it, refuse a coached story, and let the deal live or die in daylight. A purchase order is not worth a false witness.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Case study. ABC Ltd. is a large transnational company having diversified business activities with a huge shareholder base. The company is continuously expanding the generating employment. The company, in its expansion and diversification programme, decides to establish a new plant at Vikaspuri, an area which is underdeveloped. The new plant is designed to use energy efficient technology that will help the company to save production cost by 20%. The company's decision goes well with the Government policy of attracting investment to develop such underdeveloped regions. The government has also announced tax holiday for five years for the companies that invest in underdeveloped areas. However, the new plant may bring chaos for the inhabitants of Vikaspuri region, which is otherwise tranquil. The new plant may result in increased cost of living, aliens migrating to the region, disturbing the social and economic order. The company sensing the possible protest tried to educate the people of Vikaspuri region and public in general that how its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy would help overcome the likely difficulties of the residents of Vikaspuri region. In spite of this the protests begin and some of the residents decided to approach the judiciary as their plea before the Government did not yield any result. (a) Identify the issues involved in the case. (b) What can be suggested to satisfy the company's goal and to address the residents' concern?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2016 · Q9). View answer →
-
If I am not a forensic expert, should I refuse to speak?
Speak to what you perceived: speed, control, seating. Do not invent physics. Silence about obvious speeding is already a kind of speech.
-
Can my company fire me for sinking the deal?
A firm may be unjust. Lying for them is still a crime and a stain. Report internally; keep your own record of the true statement.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?
Ethics Case Studies
This case study examines ethical dilemma in defense exports, balancing economic gains, strategic partnerships, and non-proliferation norms. Ajit must choose between Country A for R&D collaboration and self-reliance, or Country B for immediate financial gains and FTA leverage. The recommended course prioritizes long-term strategic security, technological synergy, and international humanitarian norms over short-term mercantile interests.
Q11 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics?
Ethics Case Studies
This GS4 case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by a District Magistrate in managing an ethnic conflict in a sensitive border district. It analyses the ethical issues involving neutrality, human life, security, and institutional trust. It evaluates options ranging from purely coercive measures to inclusive peace-building. The recommended approach balances administrative firmness with transparent, unbiased stakeholder engagement to uphold public service values.
Q10 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WIFI connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to 'government regulations' would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.
Ethics Case Studies
• Balance strict digital rules with human empathy to prevent vulnerable citizens from losing entitled rations due to technical failures. • Avoid extreme approaches like rigid enforcement (causing exclusion) or unchecked discretion (causing leakage and corruption). • Implement practical offline workarounds like manual registers, paper slips, or OTPs backed by periodic audits. • Treat procedural norms and technology as tools for human welfare rather than rigid ends in themselves. • Recognize that digital gatekeeping creates ethical tensions between fiscal efficiency and the exclusion of genuine beneficiaries. • Guard against technology violating human dignity by forcing vulnerable groups to repeatedly prove their identity against system errors. • Ensure administrative accountability so systemic technological failures are not unfairly blamed on the citizens.