Laws, Rules, Regulations and Conscience as Ethical Guidance
A mere compliance with law is not enough, the public servant also has to have a well-developed sensibility to ethical issues for effective discharge of duties.” Do you agree? Explain with the help of two examples, where (i) an act is ethically right, but not legally and (ii) an act is legally right, but not ethically.
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
The Bombay High Court has delivered a landmark ruling dismissing a plea that argued duty-free shops situated in international departure areas are exempt from domestic laws due to their location beyond standard territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner, linked to Gautam Adani, contended that such transit-zone retail outlets operate outside the regulatory purview of national statutes because they cater to international travelers who have cleared emigration checkpoints. However, the court firmly established that commercial operations physically housed within Indian airports remain fully subject to domestic regulatory frameworks. This decision reinforces the principle that sovereign jurisdiction and statutory compliance cannot be bypassed through spatial arrangements or transit-zone classifications, carrying profound implications for fiscal governance, consumer rights, and corporate accountability in major national infrastructure projects.
In a significant legal intervention addressing the statutory protections of gender minorities, the Supreme Court asserted that subsequent amendments or alterations to transgender laws cannot strip away rights and identity recognitions already conferred upon individuals. Responding to petitions urging protection against the arbitrary cancellation of transgender identity cards, the apex court reinforced the doctrine of non-retrogression, emphasizing that state actions must uphold dignity, legal certainty, and fundamental constitutional guarantees established under landmark jurisprudence.
On September 27, 2026, the Supreme Court engaged in crucial hearings regarding legal challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. In a notable divergence of administrative stances, the Andhra Pradesh government submitted an affidavit stating it played no role in the enactment of the central legislation and maintained that it has not engaged in any discriminatory practices against transgender persons. Conversely, the Uttarakhand government defended the Act, asserting that the existing framework is beneficial for the community and sufficient to address their welfare needs. This judicial discourse highlights the complex interplay between central legislative mandates, state-level implementation, and the overarching constitutional protections for vulnerable groups.