Kalam IAS Academy was founded by a team of committed individuals who believe that the traditional way of UPSC preparation needs to be changed.
[Solved] UPSC Ethics 2025 PYQ Case Study – Subash: Conflict of Interest, Nepotism & Integrity in Public Office
UPSC CSE | GS IV Ethics Paper | Case Study 3
Q. Subash 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 formulation, 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. Subash’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.
Subash 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 before a formal public announcement of the project is made by the Minister. Subash’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 discretely 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, Subash 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 Subash in the above situation.
(c) Which of the above would be most appropriate and why?
Introduction
This case highlights a complex ethical dilemma involving conflict of interest, political pressure, and integrity in governance. Public servants like Subash often face competing obligations — to family, political authority, and professional duty — where moral courage and adherence to constitutional values are tested.
Stakeholders
Subash (the civil servant),
Vikas (his son),
PWD Minister and nephew,
Public at large (citizens and taxpayers),
Competing contractors,
Government institutions and their credibility.
(a) Ethical Issues Involved
Conflict of Interest – Clash between Subash’s personal loyalty toward his son and professional duty to maintain confidentiality.
Violation of Confidentiality – Revealing official information to private individuals would breach public trust and legal duty.
Nepotism and Favoritism – Minister’s attempt to influence allocation of projects for personal relations.
Abuse of Power – Using one’s official position for private or political advantage violates the principle of public accountability.
Erosion of Public Trust – Any compromise in transparency or fairness damages institutional credibility.
Violation of Constitutional Morality – Disregarding rule of law undermines equality and impartial governance.
(b) Critical Examination of Options
Option 1: Yield to son’s request and share project location
Merits: Temporary family peace and emotional satisfaction.
Demerits: Breach of confidentiality; dereliction of official duty; corruption; loss of credibility; violation of conduct rules and conscience.
Option 2: Comply with Minister’s directive to favour his nephew
Merits: Political goodwill; possible administrative convenience.
Demerits: Nepotism, abuse of power, violation of rule of law; long-term damage to public interest and personal reputation.
Option 3: Uphold professional integrity and refuse both pressures
Merits: Protects institutional integrity and transparency; aligns with constitutional values; reinforces public trust.
Demerits: Temporary strain in personal and professional relationships; possible transfer or career setback.
(c) Most Appropriate Option
The most ethical and appropriate option is for Subash to uphold his professional integrity and reject both personal and political pressure. He should maintain strict confidentiality, record all official communications in writing, and ensure transparency in tendering to protect public interest.
By adhering to values of integrity, impartiality, and objectivity, Subash will act in true spirit of probity in governance — even if it brings short-term challenges. His conduct will reinforce citizen faith in ethical administration and serve as a model for public servants.
Conclusion
Civil servants are trustees of public resources, not owners of them. Subash’s situation exemplifies the constant moral test between personal bonds and constitutional duty. By choosing rule of law over convenience, he upholds both administrative morality and ethical governance — the very foundation of a responsible bureaucracy.
Video Reference:
Watch the full discussion by Piyush Kumar Sinha Sir on Ethics Edge Series – Click here