← All questionsGS4 · 2016 · Ethics Case Study ·Toxic Waste and Whistleblowing Dilemma
QUESTION 9
GS4
20 marks

A fresh engineering graduate gets a job in a prestigious chemical industry. She likes the work. The salary is also good. However, after a few months accidentally discovers that a highly toxic waste is being secretly discharged into a river nearby. This is causing health problems to the villagers downstream who depend on the river for their water needs. She is perturbed and mentions her concern to her colleagues who have been with the company for longer periods. They advise her to keep quite as anyone who mentions the topic is summarily dismissed. She cannot risk losing her job as she is the sole bread-winner for her family and has to support her ailing parents and siblings. At first, she thinks that if her seniors are keeping quiet, why should she stick out her neck. But her conscience pricks her to do something to save the river and the people who depend upon it. At heart she feels that the advice of silence given by her friends is not correct though she cannot give reasons for it. She thinks you are a wise person and seeks your advice.1) What arguments can you advance to show her that keeping quiet is not morally right?2) What course of action would you advise her to adopt and why?

WRITE IN
14 min
250 words

What the examiner wants

Argue why silence is wrong and advise a course for the engineer facing toxic discharge and job loss.

Case studyName the stakeholders and the issues, weigh the options, and say what you would do and why.

Demand-wise check

  1. 1Stakeholders: villagers, engineer and family, company, colleagues, regulators≈50 words
  2. 2(a) Silence wrong: complicity in harm, public health, legal duties, conscience and professional ethics≈50 words
  3. 3(b) Options: silence, quit, internal reporting, external complaint to Pollution Control Board, media≈50 words
  4. 4Advice: gather evidence, raise internally, then report to authorities; seek protection and support≈50 words

Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.

Answer plan

Stakeholders(a) arguments(b) options with merits and demeritsChosen courseConclusion

Where marks usually go

  • Advising immediate media exposure without steps
  • Ignoring her family's needs

Draw this

  • Decision tree from evidence to internal to external reporting

Value addition

  • CaseM.C. Mehta (Oleum gas leak, 1986) laid down absolute liability for hazardous industries.Supreme Court, 1986
  • LawWater (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 prohibits discharge of poisonous matter into rivers.Water Act, 1974
  • CaseVellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996) adopted the polluter-pays principle.Supreme Court, 1996

Mapped topper copies

Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.

Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.