1 October: the collector and the touts
Thursday 1 October 2026
GS Paper 4 · Case study · 250 words · 20 marks
Seema is a senior bureaucrat with a reputation of honesty and professional efficiency. She has recently been posted as the District Collector (DC) to Surinder Nagar, where a large industrial area is being established.
The new industrial area had caused many farmers to submit applications for change of land use (CLU) to convert their farmlands into residential areas. There is an unusually large backlog of these applications awaiting processing. Seema noticed that some applications had been approved selectively with no visible chronological pattern. The case files showed a few complaints of some approvals being subject to receipt of large bribes from the applicants.
On further fact-finding, Seema realized that a small group of touts was controlling this illegal activity through some subordinate officials in the Collectorate. This had created a fear in the other employees who were reluctant to process any application. The resultant backlog has been piling up thereby hindering local economic progress and causing public dissatisfaction.
Seema was faced with a major moral and administrative challenge of dismantling this corruption network without hampering daily administrative operations. An aggressive internal investigation would result in institutional resistance and, possibly, a backlash from labour unions. Conversely, ignoring this situation would encourage the wrongdoers and unnecessarily continue this avoidable harassment to the populace.
(a) What are the ethical issues involved in this case?
(b) Discuss the options open to Seema. Identify the recommended option and justify it.
(UPSC Mains 2026, GS Paper 4, Q9)
Set a timer for 14 minutes. Write your answer before you read anything below.
Open only after you have written
How to approach this case
Use the six-part shape from GS Paper 4. Part (a) covers parts 1 to 3. Part (b) covers parts 4 to 6.
| Part | For this case |
|---|---|
| 1. The situation | Bribes decide which farmers' applications move. Honest staff are too afraid to act, so the backlog grows |
| 2. The stakeholders | Seema, the farmers, the honest staff, the officials involved, the touts, the unions, the people waiting for jobs in the industrial area, and the farmers who refused to pay and are still waiting |
| 3. The ethical issues | Integrity against keeping the office running. Fairness in the order files are cleared. Staff working in fear |
| 4. The options | Leave it alone. Launch an aggressive inquiry. Fix the process first and investigate in parallel |
| 5. Your decision | One option, chosen |
| 6. Your reason | A reason you could give in public, to the farmers in the queue |
What to avoid.
| Mistake | What to do instead |
|---|---|
| "Seema faces a dilemma between duty and practicality" | Name the two things that cannot both be had |
| Forgetting the farmers who did not pay | Name them as the people most harmed |
| "Suspend everyone involved" with no plan for the backlog | Say how files keep moving while the inquiry runs |
| Three options and no recommendation | Recommend one, as the question asks |
A model response
(a) Ethical issues
- Integrity. Bribes decide which farmers get approval. The date of application counts for nothing.
- Fairness. Farmers who refuse to pay wait longest, and the poorest suffer most.
- Duty against convenience. Acting risks resistance and union protests. Not acting lets the harassment continue.
- Fear. Honest employees are afraid to do their jobs, so the office protects the corrupt.
(b) Options
- Leave it alone and clear files as they come. The office stays calm. The cost is that the touts keep control, and Seema becomes complicit.
- Launch an aggressive inquiry at once. It signals intent. The cost is staff resistance, possible strikes and a longer backlog.
- Fix the process and investigate in parallel. Put every application online and clear them strictly in date order, with each file's status public. Set a deadline for each stage. Move the officials named in complaints away from these files. Refer the evidence of bribery to the state's anti-corruption agency under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Meet staff and unions, and tell them honest employees are not the target. The cost is slower punishment, and the touts may push back.
My choice: option 3. A public, date-ordered queue removes the touts' power at once, because a bribe no longer buys a place. Honest staff can work without fear, and the backlog starts to clear. Legal action through the proper agency punishes the guilty with due process. Seema could explain every step openly to the farmers waiting in the queue.
Word count: 244.
Why this response works. Each ethical issue says what is at stake. Every option states its cost. The chosen option deals with the corruption and the backlog together, which is the challenge the case sets.
Where it could be stronger. It could say how Seema will protect the employees who give evidence against the officials involved.