A private company is known for its efficiency, transparency and employee welfare. The company though owned by a private individual has a cooperative character where employees feel a sense of ownership. The company employs nearly 700 personnel and they have voluntarily decided not to form a union. One day suddenly in the morning, about 40 men belonging to a political party gatecrashed into the factory demanding jobs in the factory. They threatened the management and employees, and also used foul language. The employees feel demoralized. It was clear that those people who gate-crashed wanted to be on the payroll of the company as well as continue as the volunteers/members of the party. The company maintains high standards in integrity and does not extend favours to civil administration that also includes law enforcement agency. Such incidents occur in public sector also. 1. Assume you are the CEO of the company. What would you do to diffuse the volatile situation on the date of gate-crashing with the violent mob sitting inside the company premises? her to keep quite as anyone who mentions the topic is summarily dismissed. She cannot risk losing her job as she is the sole bread-winner for her family and has to support her ailing parents and siblings. At first, she thinks that if her seniors are keeping quiet, why should she stick out her neck. But her conscience pricks her to do something to save the river and the people who depend upon it. At heart she feels that the advice of silence given by her friends is not correct though she cannot give reasons for it. She thinks you are a wise person and seeks your advice. 1. What arguments can you advance to show her that keeping quiet is not morally right? 2. What course of action would you advise her to adopt and why?”
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.
In a significant legal submission before the Madras High Court, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin stated that he cannot be held personally or institutionally responsible for every social media post published by party handles, functionaries, or allied digital volunteers. This defense arose in response to legal challenges implicating him in a controversial post by the DMK IT Wing, which had asserted a familial link between a narcotic drugs case accused and a state minister. The proceedings underscore the complex legal and ethical frontiers of digital political campaigning, touching upon critical questions of command responsibility, vicarious liability, and the regulation of political discourse in an era dominated by rapid digital communication.
The Kerala High Court recently intervened to protect a CPI(M) member from coercive legal action by state authorities following a social media post that compared media coverage of political leaders foreign trips across different tenures. The petitioner argued that the post constituted a legitimate political observation rather than defamation against the Home Minister. This judicial intervention highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the threshold for criminal defamation, police overreach, and the protection of dissenting or comparative political discourse in democratic spaces.
On September 27, 2026, Ashutosh Ranka and a team from the non-governmental organization Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) were detained by authorities in Guwahati, Assam. The incident occurred while the team was purportedly engaged in a fact-finding mission to assess the ground-level conditions of educational institutions in the state. The detention has reignited a critical discourse regarding the operational independence of civil society organizations, the boundaries of state authority in restricting movement, and the perceived antagonism between administrative narratives of development and independent investigative efforts by NGOs.