Revision summary
Ashok’s story names a stone mafia after an SP is killed in a banned Aravalli mining belt. Selling the report for a loan adjustment is a bribe; a vague broadcast and empty resignation also fail. The right path is preserved evidence, criminal and court channels, vetted publication outside the captured channel, and lawful medical help. Dilemmas centre on a child’s debt versus truth, not on whether illegal mining may continue. Police training must cover law, convoy tactics, forensics, integrity and care for labourers who are not the shooters.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
The Supreme Court has banned mining in the Aravallis; a young SP is dead; Ashok’s report names a mafia with police, civil and political cover. The CMD offers to buy the story with a child’s medical loan. Illegal mining is not to be blessed. The child’s illness is not to be mocked. The path is lawful publication and lawful care, not a silenced murder.
Body
Stakeholders
- Ashok, his son who needs treatment, and his family.
- The murdered Superintendent of Police, the investigating police, and officers still in the district.
- Villagers and forests of the Aravalli range under a Supreme Court mining ban.
- The local MLA, the Chief Minister’s circle, and corrupt officials named in the report.
- The CMD, the channel owner, and the audience that trusts the news.
- Labourers in illegal pits, who need lawful work, not a mafia wage.
(a) Options
- Option 1: Hand the report to the CMD, take the loan adjustment and the hike, and drop the story.
- Option 2: Air a softened version that names “anti-social elements” and not the MLA.
- Option 3: Resign in anger, keep the files at home, and do nothing further.
- Option 4: Put an unverified full broadcast on air against the CMD’s ban, including raw allegations still untested.
- Option 5: Refuse the bargain, preserve copies, move the evidence to a competent criminal and court channel, and publish through a medium that is not owned by the accused nexus, with legal vetting and care for the child’s treatment by lawful means.
(b) Evaluation
- Option 1 merit: the son’s loan pressure eases; Ashok keeps a desk.
- Option 1 demerit: concealment of a murder-linked mafia; the Supreme Court ban is mocked; you are paid in a child’s illness. Rejected.
- Option 2 merit: something airs.
- Option 2 demerit: the public is misled; the MLA remains unnamed; it is still a sale of the core facts.
- Option 3 merit: personal exit.
- Option 3 demerit: the SP’s death stays unsolved in the public square; the files can be stolen from a house.
- Option 4 merit: speed.
- Option 4 demerit: defamation of anyone wrongly named, contempt risk, and a channel war that can bury the facts in noise.
- Option 5 merit: the ban, the murder and the nexus reach a forum that can act; the journalist is not the MLA’s employee on this story.
- Option 5 demerit: job loss and threat; those are reasons for protection, not for killing the story.
(c) Ethical dilemmas
- Truth-telling versus a child’s medical debt held by the same employer.
- Loyalty to the newsroom versus loyalty to the dead officer and to the forest.
- Personal safety versus publication.
- Confidential sources in the mafia and in government versus the duty to a court.
- A complete on-air naming versus the legal duty not to defame on a guess.
- The dilemma is not “mining versus journalism”. Illegal mining is already forbidden. The dilemma is whether a child’s hospital bill can buy a silence.
(d) Most appropriate course
- Do not sell the report for a hike, a promotion, or adjustment of the Rs 10 lakh loan. That is a bribe in the shape of mercy.
- Keep original notes, footage and a hash-dated copy outside the office.
- File the material with the police investigating the SP’s murder, and with a competent court or a commission if the local station is captured; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the frame for the official nexus.
- Seek legal vetting and publish in a forum not owned by the MLA’s kin — another publisher, a sworn affidavit, a petition — rather than a reckless live show that the CMD can twist.
- For the son: lawful hospital charity, insurance, public health schemes, and a loan that is not the price of silence. Ask a court for protection if the channel weaponises the debt.
- Do not take money from the stone mafia to “balance” the story. That is the other face of the same vice.
- Accept that the desk may be lost. A journalist who buries a murdered SP has already lost the profession.
(e) Training for police in such districts
- Legal core: the Supreme Court’s Aravalli mining restriction, forest and environment statutes, and that illegal extraction is not a “local livelihood custom” when a court has banned it.
- Tactics: never stand in front of a moving truck as a lone hero; use road design, drones, GPS on suspected fleets, and coordinated nakas.
- Integrity: rotation, asset checks, and the cost of a nexus under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Forensics of a hit-and-run: preserve the scene, CCTV, weighbridge data, and quarry receipts in the first hours, so a three-month blank does not become the norm.
- Human rights: distinguish pit labourers from shooters; do not collectively punish a village.
- Mental health and family security for officers who have seen a colleague killed.
- Joint work with forest and revenue so a seized truck is not released by another desk the same night.
- Media protocol: facts to the control room, not a leak that gets a journalist killed, and not a gag that protects the MLA.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD STORY[Aravalli nexus and dead SP] --> REF[Refuse loan-for-silence] REF --> EV[Police court other publisher] REF --> MED[Lawful care for child] SELL[Hand report to CMD] --> SIL[Silence over murder] SOLO[Stand in front of truck] --> DEATH[Repeat of SP killing]
Conclusion
The child’s illness is a claim on lawful help. It is not a claim on the SP’s truth. Refuse the CMD’s bargain, move evidence to a competent forum, publish without the owner’s muzzle, and train police to survive trucks and to refuse the quarry’s envelope.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Case study. You have done MBA from a reputed institution three years back but could not get campus placement due to COVID-19 generated recession. However, after a lot of persuasion and series of competitive tests including written and interview, you managed to get a job in a leading shoe company. You have ageur parents who are dependent and staying with you. You also recently got married after getting this decent job. You were allotted the Inspection Section which is responsible for clearing the final product. In first one year, you learnt your job well and was appreciated for your performance by the management. The company is doing good business for last five years in domestic market and this year it is decided even to export to Europe and Gulf countries. However, one large consignment to Europe was rejected by their Inspecting Team due to certain poor quality and was sent back. The top management ordered that ibid consignment to be cleared for the domestic market. As a part of Inspecting Team, you observed the glaring poor quality and brought to the knowledge of the Team Commander. However, the top management advised all the members of the team to overlook these defects as the management cannot bear such a huge loss. Rest of the team members except you promptly signed and cleared the consignment for domestic market, overlooking glaring defects. You again brought to the knowledge of the Team Commander that such consignment, if cleared even for domestic market, will tarnish the image and reputation of the company and will be counter-productive in the long run. However, you were further advised by the top management that if you do not clear the consignment, the company will not hesitate to terminate your services citing certain innocuous reasons. (a) Under the given conditions, what are the options available to you as a member of the Inspecting Team? (b) Critically evaluate each of the options listed by you. (c) What option would you adopt and why? (d) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by you? (e) What can be the consequences of overlooking the observations raised by the Inspecting Team?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2022 · Q10). View answer →
-
If the channel owns the loan, is Ashok trapped?
The debt is a civil obligation. Using it to buy silence is coercion. Courts, other publishers and hospital charity are the humane lawful exits.
-
Should police copy the dead SP’s lone stop of a truck?
No. Training should forbid that tactic. Stop the fleet with design, numbers and intelligence, not with a body in the headlights.
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.