Subhash is Secretary, PWD in the State Government. He is a senior officer, known for his competence, integrity and dedication to work. He enjoys the trust and confidence of Minister incharge of PWD and Programme Implementation. As a part of his job profile, he is responsible for policy formulations, execution of projects relating to infrastructure initiatives in the State. Besides, he oversees the technical and administrative aspects relating to planning, designing and construction etc. Subhash’s Minister is an important Minister in the state and significant growth in urban infrastructure development and road network has been registered during his tenure. He is very keen for launching of ambitious road construction project in the near future. Subhash is in regular touch with the Minister and is working various modalities of road construction project. Regular meetings, interactions and presentations are made by him to the Minister based on a formal public announcement of the project is made by the Minister. Subhash’s only son Vikas is in real estate business. His son from his own sources is aware that a mega road project is on the anvil and announcement in this regard is expected anytime. He is very keen to know from his father the exact location of the upcoming project. He knows that there would be quantum jump in the prices of land in the vicinity. Buying land at this stage at cheaper prices would pay him rich dividends. He is pleading with him (his father) day in and day out to share him location of the proposed project. He assured him that he would handle the matter discreetly as it would not attract any adverse notice as he in the normal course, keeps on buying land as a part of his business. He feels pressurised because of constant pleadings by his son. Another significant aspect of the matter pertained to the extra/undue interest in the above project by the Minister PWD. His nephew was also having big infrastructure project company. In fact, the Minister has also introduced his nephew to him and indicated to him to take care of his nephew’s business interest in the forthcoming project. The Minister encouraged him to act fast in the matter as early announcement and execution of mega road project would enhance his status in the party and public life. In the above backdrop, Subhash is in a fix as to the future course of action. (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. (b) Critically examine the options available to Subhash in the above situation? (c) Which of the above would be most appropriate 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.
On September 21, 2026, the Madras High Court granted leave to Tamil Nadu Minister T.K. Prabhu to initiate a civil defamation suit seeking damages of ₹1 crore against a YouTuber, Maridhas. The petition, permitted by Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, underscores the evolving dynamics between public functionaries and the burgeoning digital content ecosystem. While public discourse often demands scrutiny of political figures, the legal action highlights the threshold where digital commentary transitions into actionable defamation. This case serves as a point of reflection on the balance between constitutional protections for free speech and the individual rights of public figures to protect their reputation against potentially unverified or malicious claims in the digital sphere.
A high-profile case in Hyderabad initially recorded as a student suicide has been uncovered as a calculated murder, highlighting critical gaps in initial forensic assessment, police investigation integrity, and the vulnerability of young women to coerced framing and violence. The incident, where an engineering student was intercepted, forced to consume pesticide, and compelled to write a fabricated suicide note implicating an innocent third party, underscores systemic challenges in criminal investigation protocols and the imperative for rigorous forensic scrutiny before concluding cases.
In September 2026, public remarks by Abhijeet Dipke urging opposition parties to halt participation in elections perceived as rigged have reignited profound debates surrounding democratic integrity, institutional trust, and the tactical validity of electoral boycotts. This intervention underscores mounting anxieties over whether continuous participation under skewed conditions legitimises flawed systems or if abstention accelerates political irrelevance, inviting a critical review of constitutional governance and electoral reforms.