Ethics Case Studies — Practice Questions
Three GS IV-pattern case studies with full model answers — flood relief under political pressure, mining and tribal consent, and facial recognition in schools.
Questions
These are original GS IV-pattern case studies. Spend about 12 minutes on each, writing within 250 words, before opening the model answer.
Case study. Heavy floods have struck your district, where you are the District Collector. Relief material — food packets, tarpaulins, medicines — is limited and arriving in batches. Assessments by your teams show that a group of low-lying villages, mostly inhabited by landless labourers, is the worst affected. The local legislator calls you and insists that the first consignments go to villages in another area that “stood by him” in the elections, warning that he will complain to senior leaders if you refuse. Local media have begun reporting delays.
(a) Identify the stakeholders and the ethical issues. (b) Evaluate the options available to you. (c) What course of action would you adopt?
Solution
Facts and dilemma: Relief must be allocated by need, but a legislator is pressuring for allocation by political loyalty.
Stakeholders: flood-affected people (especially landless labourers, women, children, the elderly); the legislator; relief teams; the State government; the media; the Collector.
Ethical issues:
- Impartiality and equity in relief versus political pressure.
- Right to life and dignity (Article 21) of the worst affected.
- Non-partisanship of the civil service.
- Transparency and public trust.
- Personal career risk versus duty.
Options:
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Comply with the legislator | Avoids political friction | Partisan; leaves the neediest without help; may cost lives |
| Refuse bluntly and publicise the pressure | Shows independence | Escalates conflict; distracts from relief work |
| Allocate strictly by assessed need, explain the criteria to the legislator, and keep records public | Fair, lawful, defensible; protects lives | Possible displeasure of the legislator |
Course of action:
- Allocate the first consignments by documented need, prioritising the low-lying villages and vulnerable groups.
- Explain courteously to the legislator that allocation follows assessed damage under disaster relief norms; assure him that his area will be covered in subsequent batches, with a timeline.
- Record the conversation in a note to the file and inform the Divisional Commissioner or Relief Commissioner.
- Publish the allocation criteria and daily distribution data; set up a helpline and grievance desk.
- Involve panchayats and civil society volunteers in distribution to build trust and speed.
- Request additional supplies from the State so that no area waits long.
Conclusion: Relief is a right, not a reward. Allocating by need, transparently, reflects impartiality and Gandhi’s talisman — the first help goes to the weakest.
Case study. A large mining project in your district promises thousands of jobs and substantial royalty revenue for the State. It requires diversion of forest land that a tribal community uses for grazing, minor forest produce and worship. Under forest rights law, the community’s gram sabha must be consulted; it has not given consent and many members fear displacement. The State government is pressing for quick clearance, and some local youth are eager for jobs. As District Collector, you are responsible for verifying the settlement of forest rights.
(a) What are the ethical issues involved? (b) Evaluate the options before you. (c) What would you do?
Solution
Facts and dilemma: Economic development and jobs conflict with the rights, livelihoods and culture of a tribal community, and with the legal requirement of a genuine consultation.
Stakeholders: the tribal community (including women and elders); youth seeking jobs; the mining company; the State government; the forest and its ecology; future generations; the Collector.
Ethical issues:
- Development versus the rights and dignity of a vulnerable community.
- Free and informed consent versus pressure for speed.
- Inter-generational equity and environmental sustainability.
- Rule of law — compliance with the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
- Honesty in verification versus pressure from superiors.
Options:
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Certify rights as settled to speed clearance | Pleases the State; quick investment | Illegal and dishonest; violates tribal rights; likely to be struck down; unrest |
| Recommend rejection outright | Protects the community | Ignores the jobs and revenue; may be premature without full consultation |
| Conduct a genuine, transparent rights-settlement and gram sabha process, and report the result honestly | Lawful; respects consent; credible outcome | Slower; may disappoint the State and the company |
Course of action:
- Ensure all individual and community forest rights claims are received and decided as the law requires.
- Hold gram sabha meetings in the local language, with independent observers and video records; share full information on project impact, compensation and rehabilitation.
- Report the outcome honestly to the State, whatever it is.
- If the community consents, insist on fair rehabilitation, local employment, a share of benefits, and environmental safeguards; if not, recommend exploring alternative sites or designs.
- Address youth aspirations through skilling and alternative employment programmes.
Conclusion: Development that tramples consent is neither lawful nor sustainable. Honest verification upholds the rule of law and Rawls’s priority for the least advantaged.
Case study. Teacher absenteeism and fake student enrolment are problems in your district’s government schools. A technology start-up offers you, as District Education Officer, a facial-recognition attendance system for all government schools free of cost. In return, it asks for the right to use the facial images of students and teachers to train its software, which it plans to sell commercially. Your superiors are enthusiastic about a “zero-cost innovation”. Parents have not been consulted, and most students are minors.
(a) Identify the ethical issues. (b) Evaluate the options. (c) What course of action would you recommend?
Solution
Facts and dilemma: A free tool could improve accountability in schools, but at the cost of children’s biometric data being used commercially without informed consent.
Stakeholders: students (minors) and parents; teachers; the education department; the start-up; superiors; society at large.
Ethical issues:
- Right to privacy — recognised as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
- Informed consent, especially for minors.
- Commercial exploitation of public data; “free” services paid for with data.
- Accuracy and bias of facial recognition; risk of wrongly marking absence.
- Efficiency and accountability versus rights; proportionality.
Options:
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Accept the offer as proposed | Zero cost; quick fix for absenteeism | Violates privacy and consent; data misuse; legal risk |
| Reject outright | Protects privacy | Leaves absenteeism unaddressed |
| Decline the data-for-service terms; pursue less intrusive or properly governed solutions | Balances accountability and rights; lawful | Slower; may cost money; disappoints superiors |
Course of action:
- Explain to superiors, in a written note, the legal and ethical risks of transferring children’s biometric data for commercial use.
- Decline the offer on the proposed terms.
- Explore proportionate alternatives: geo-tagged teacher attendance, community monitoring through School Management Committees, surprise inspections, and verification of enrolment records.
- If biometric systems are considered, require a procurement process, a data-protection impact assessment, parental consent, data held by the government only, purpose limitation and deletion rules, in line with data-protection law.
- Address root causes of absenteeism — teacher vacancies, remote postings, non-teaching duties.
Conclusion: Technology should serve citizens, not convert them into data for others’ profit. Kant’s principle applies: children must not be treated merely as means, even for a worthy goal.