UPSC Mains 2020 GS Paper 4 Q10: model answer
You are a municipal commissioner of a large city, having the reputation of a very honest and upright officer. A huge multipurpose mall is under construction in your city in which a large number of daily wage earners are employed. One night, during monsoons, a big chunk of the roof collapsed causing instant death of four labourers including two minors. Many more were seriously injured requiring immediate medical attention. The mishap resulted in a big hue and cry, forcing the government to institute an enquiry. Your preliminary enquiry has revealed a series of anomalies. The material used for the construction was of poor quality. Despite the approved building plans permitting only one basement, an additional basement has been constructed. This was overlooked during the periodic inspections by the building inspector of the municipal corporation. In your enquiry, you noticed that the construction of the mall was given the green signal despite encroaching on areas earmarked for a green belt and a slip road in the Zonal Master Plan of the city. The permission to construct the mall was accorded by the previous Municipal Commissioner who is not only your senior and well known to you professionally, but also a good friend. Prima facie, the case appears to be of a widespread nexus between officials of the Municipal Corporation and the builders. Your colleagues are putting pressure on you to go slow in the enquiry. The builder, who is rich and influential, happens to be a close relative of a powerful minister in the state cabinet. The builder is persuading you to hush up the matter, promising you a fortune to do so. He also hinted that if this matter is not resolved at the earliest in his favour there is somebody in his office who is waiting to file a case against you under the POSH Act. Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. What are the options available to you in this situation? Explain your selected course of action.
What the question wants
Discuss the ethical issues in a mall collapse involving a builder's nexus with officials, list your options as municipal commissioner, and explain your course of action.
How to structure it
Issues, options, course.
- Ethical issues
- Options
- Course of action
How to think it through
Issues: loss of life (two minors - child labour too), corruption nexus, extra basement, green belt encroachment, friend predecessor (conflict of interest/loyalty), colleagues' pressure, bribe offer (PC Act), threat of false POSH case (blackmail), minister's influence. Options: hush up; go slow; recuse; full inquiry. Course: relief and medical aid, compensation; seal site; transparent inquiry including predecessor's role; FIRs; report bribe offer and threat to ACB/vigilance (record conversation); inform Chief Secretary; disclose friendship and recuse only from parts? Better: proceed but disclose relationship; structural audit of similar buildings; regularisation stop; child labour action.
Model answer
Stakeholders
- Families of the dead labourers, including two minors; the injured; city residents; the builder; the minister; my predecessor and colleagues; the corporation; me.
Dilemmas
- Friendship and loyalty vs justice; career safety vs integrity; fear of a false complaint vs duty.
Options
- Hush up; go slow; recuse myself; conduct a full, fair inquiry and report pressure.
Four people died, two of them children who should never have been on a construction site. Against that, a friendship, a fortune and a threat all weigh nothing.
Ethical issues
- Loss of life through negligence: poor material, an illegal second basement and missed inspections.
- Child labour on a hazardous site.
- Corruption nexus: approvals despite encroachment on a green belt and slip road in the master plan.
- Conflict of loyalty: the previous Commissioner is my friend and senior.
- Bribery and blackmail: the builder offers a fortune and threatens a false POSH complaint.
- Political pressure through a powerful minister, and colleagues urging me to go slow.
Options
- Hush up for money: corruption and complicity; morally and legally indefensible.
- Go slow: avoids conflict, but betrays the victims and lets evidence disappear.
- Recuse myself because of the friendship: honest in intent, but may hand the inquiry to someone more pliable.
- Full and fair inquiry, with disclosure and reporting: hard, but the only option consistent with duty.
My course of action
- Victims first: medical care for the injured, compensation for the families, and action on child labour.
- Seal the site and order structural audits of other buildings by the same builder.
- Disclose my friendship with the predecessor to the government in writing, and ask that his role be examined by an independent officer, while I continue with the rest of the inquiry.
- Report the bribe offer and the threat to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, with whatever record I have.
- File FIRs against the builder and identify officials who failed in inspections.
- Systemic fixes: geotagged inspections, online plan approvals and no regularisation of master plan violations.
The builder thought my reputation could be bought or broken. A reputation for honesty is built for exactly this kind of week.
Draw: A flow: relief → seal and audit → disclose and inquire → report bribe and threat → systemic fixes.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
building collapse, negligence, child labour, illegal basement, master plan violation, green belt, nexus, conflict of interest, disclosure, bribe offer, PC Act, false POSH threat, ACB, FIR, structural audit, geotagged inspections.
Where most answers lose marks
- Recusing completely 'because of friendship' and stopping there, or ignoring the child labour angle.
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.