UPSC Mains 2019 GS Paper 4 Q9: model answer
An apparel manufacturing company having large number of women employees was losing sales due to various factors. The company hired a reputed marketing executive, who increased the volume of sales within a short span of time. However, some unconfirmed reports came up regarding his indulgence in sexual harassment at the work place. After sometime, a woman employee lodged a formal complaint to the management against the marketing executive about sexually harassing her. Faced with the company's indifference in not taking cognizance of her grievance, she lodged an FIR with the Police. Realizing the sensitivity and gravity of the situation, the company called the woman employee to negotiate. In that she was offered a hefty sum of money to withdraw the complaint and the FIR and also give in writing that the marketing executive is not involved in the case. Identify the ethical issues involved in this case. What options are available to the woman employee?
What the question wants
Identify the ethical issues when a company offers money to a woman to withdraw a harassment complaint against a star executive, and list her options.
How to structure it
Issues, options.
- Ethical issues
- Options with merits and demerits
- Best course
How to think it through
Company failed POSH duty (IC, inquiry). Offering money to withdraw FIR and give false statement = attempt to subvert justice, possibly offence (criminal intimidation, inducement to give false evidence). Sexual harassment offence (BNS 75). Options: accept money; refuse and continue FIR; approach Local Committee (if no IC) or IC under POSH; approach women's commission; labour authorities; media; legal aid. Advice: refuse; document offer; inform police about the inducement; approach LC; seek support, NCW; protect job — POSH protects against victimisation.
Model answer
Stakeholders
- The complainant; other women employees; the marketing executive; the company and its management; police; the public.
Dilemmas
- Money and job security vs justice; company's sales vs safety at work.
Options
- Accept; refuse and pursue all remedies; use additional legal forums.
The company has moved from indifference to inducement. It now wants her to sell not only her complaint but also her signature on a lie.
Ethical issues
- Dignity and safety at work violated by harassment.
- Institutional failure: the company ignored the complaint, though the POSH Act, 2013 requires an Internal Committee and inquiry.
- Profit over people: a sales record is being used to protect alleged abuse.
- Subverting justice: paying her to withdraw an FIR and certify his innocence is an attempt to obstruct the law and procure false evidence.
- Power imbalance: a single employee against management and a star executive.
- Message to other women: silence is rewarded, speaking up is punished.
Options available to her
- Accept the money and withdraw: financial relief and an end to stress; but justice is denied, the harasser continues, and she signs a false statement that could expose her to legal trouble.
- Refuse and continue with the FIR: upholds justice; but the process is long, and she may face pressure at work.
- Approach the Local or Internal Committee under the POSH Act, and the State Women's Commission.
- Report the inducement to the police as part of her case.
- Seek legal aid from the District Legal Services Authority and support from women's organisations.
- Use labour and company channels: the board or independent directors if the company is listed.
Best course
- Refuse the offer, document it (date, persons, amount), and inform the police and the Committee.
- The POSH Act protects her from victimisation at work; any adverse action can be challenged.
- Seek counselling and peer support.
The money would end her case. It would not end the harassment, only move it to the next woman.
Draw: Two paths from 'offer on the table': 'accept' leading to silence and repetition, 'refuse and record' leading to inquiry and justice.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
sexual harassment, POSH Act 2013, Internal Committee, Local Committee, FIR, inducement, obstruction of justice, false statement, power imbalance, women's commission, DLSA legal aid, victimisation protection, documentation.
Where most answers lose marks
- Advising her to accept and move on for 'practical' reasons, or ignoring the company's own legal duty.
Related Mains PYQs
- A business house is working on a project that could displace a forest community from their habitat. As the administrative officer of… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Owing to paucity of time, a university professor generates a Ph.D. evaluation report using Artificial Intelligence and submits it with some modifications.… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though… UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
- Discuss how national security can be balanced with concerns of human rights. UPSC 2026 · GS-IV
Fresh examples from current affairs
Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand
In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.
UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.
19 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) question paper. The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.
Want every PYQ in one place? See the Battle IAS PYQ Book.