UPSC Prelims 2026 Question:

Ms. X is a mid-level civil service official of poor development working in department of a major city.  Recently, she was involved in approving a contract for a public infrastructure project a new community park.  During the approval process, she received a piece of confidential information of the shortlisted indicating  that one contractors had a history workmanship and allegations of corruption in other cities, though nothing  had been legally proven. The Head of the Department, Mr. Y, advised her not to disclose this information  to the project committee or the public because it could delay the project and damage the city's reputation.  However, Ms. X believed that withholding such information compromised transparency and public trust. 

What amongst the following should Ms. X do now? 

1. Immediately disclose the information to the project committee and the public 
2. Recommend removing the contractor from the shortlist to protect the project's integrity
3. Propose a 'limited disclosure' to an oversight committee, while keeping the information confidential  from the public for the time being 

 

Select the answer using the code given below: 

Answer: 2 

Explanation: 

• Immediate public disclosure of confidential, legally unproven information is neither procedurally  sound nor ethically appropriate at this stage. Transparency is a core value, but it must operate through  established institutional channels, not bypass them. Going public prematurely could expose the  government to legal liability, potentially defame a contractor against whom nothing has been proven,  and paradoxically undermine public trust by projecting an image of administrative recklessness. Ms  X has not yet exhausted internal remedies; public disclosure is a last resort, not a first step. So statement  1 is not correct. 
• Recommending the removal of the contractor from the shortlist appears protective of public interest  on the surface, but it is a consequential administrative action that directly affects the contractor's legal and  commercial rights. Taking such a step on the basis of unproven allegations without giving the contractor  an opportunity to respond, violates the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem). Additionally,  as a mid-level official, Ms. X likely does not have the unilateral authority to remove a shortlisted party;  that decision is vested with the project committee or a higher authority. Acting beyond one's jurisdictional  competence, even with good intentions, is itself an ethical lapse. So, statement 2 is not correct. 
• Proposing limited disclosure to an oversight committee is the institutionally sound and ethically calibrated  response. It directly counters Mr. Y's directive to suppress the information entirely, ensuring the matter  reaches a competent authority with the mandate to evaluate it. At the same time, it preserves confidentiality  where legally required, avoids public harm from unverified disclosures, and protects due process for all  parties. This is the essence of whistleblowing through proper channels ethical courage exercised within  procedural guardrails, not outside them. So, statement 3 is correct. 

Therefore, option (2) is the correct answer.