UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — General Studies-IV (Paper-V): Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

07 Sep UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — General Studies-IV (Paper-V): Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

The questions below are from General Studies-IV (Paper-V) of UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 (held 2026-08-23) — the actual paper, which is public. Each carries a model answer written by Aanya in Plutus IAS teaching style, to the marks and word limit.

1 of 12 questions in this paper were covered in Plutus IAS classes before the exam — each such question is marked below with the class that covered it.

Official source: official (upsc.gov.in).

Q1. (a) Owing to paucity of time, a university professor generates a Ph.D. evaluation report using Artificial Intelligence and submits it with some modifications. Discuss this from the perspective of accountability and integrity. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) A business house is working on a project that could displace a forest community from their habitat. As the administrative officer of that district, what ethical challenges are you likely to face? (Answer in 150 words) 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “discuss” asks for an analytical response that weighs ethical principles against real-world constraints. Examiners test (i) understanding of accountability and integrity in public/professional conduct, (ii) ability to identify stakeholders and their rights, and (iii) capacity to suggest ethical safeguards. The common mistake is to treat the issue as purely technical (e.g., “AI is fast”) and ignore the moral dimensions of authorship, consent, and harm.

Model answer

Academic integrity and accountability are non-negotiable when AI-generated content is submitted as original scholarship. The professor’s act breaches the core values of truth and attribution enshrined in the UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018. AI tools are aids, not authors; outsourcing evaluation to them without human verification dilutes the peer-review process and undermines public trust in degrees. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has already issued advisories against such practices after instances surfaced in 2023–24 where Ph.D. theses were found to contain AI-generated sections. Accountability lies with the professor to ensure every evaluation is personally verified and every source disclosed. Integrity demands transparency: had the professor disclosed AI assistance and subjected the report to a second human review, the ethical breach could have been mitigated. The episode also raises questions about institutional oversight—why did the university’s plagiarism detection software not flag AI-generated prose? Institutions must strengthen ethics committees and adopt AI-use policies that mandate human-in-the-loop verification before any report is finalized.

Q2. (a) An endangered tribe has developed a severe skeletal deformity. A university research has identified a mineral supplement as a possible remedy, though clinical trials are yet to be conducted. Should the District Magistrate (DM) use this research on the tribe? Discuss from the perspective of medical and administrative ethics. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) Discuss how national security can be balanced with concerns of human rights. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (15 marks)

✔ Covered in our Current Affairs class on 2026-08-27 — India-China Border Diplomacy, CERD Review, and Proactive Drought Management.

How to approach this question

The directive word “discuss” demands a balanced, two-part response: first, analyse the ethical dimensions of using untested medical research on an endangered tribe; second, evaluate the administrative ethics of the DM’s decision. The examiner is testing your grasp of medical ethics (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice) and administrative ethics (public trust, accountability, proportionality). Most aspirants err by leaning too heavily on one side—either dismissing the supplement outright or rushing into trials without safeguards. Structure your answer into: (1) ethical justification for intervention, (2) ethical constraints and safeguards, and (3) administrative pathway forward.

Model answer

Introduction: Using untested mineral supplements on an endangered tribe raises acute medical and administrative ethics concerns. While the potential benefit is high, the risks of harm, exploitation, and loss of trust demand a deliberative, rights-based approach.

Medical ethics perspective:

• Beneficence and non-maleficence: The principle of “do no harm” is paramount. Without Phase I/II trials, the supplement’s toxicity, dosage, and interactions remain unknown, risking irreversible skeletal damage or organ failure. The Declaration of Helsinki (1964) mandates prior animal and small-cohort safety trials before human exposure.
• Autonomy and informed consent: Endangered tribes often lack literacy and access to legal recourse; obtaining truly informed consent is ethically fraught. The Belmont Report (1979) requires comprehension, voluntariness, and special protections for vulnerable populations.
• Justice: Selective provision to one tribe risks exploitation and sets a precedent for coercive biomedical research. The principle of distributive justice demands equitable access or non-intervention until global evidence exists.

Administrative ethics perspective:

• Public trust and accountability: The DM’s mandate under Article 21 (right to health) and administrative law (natural justice) requires transparency, grievance redress, and independent oversight. Concealing risks or rushing trials breaches the fiduciary duty owed to the tribe.
• Proportionality: The DM must weigh the marginal benefit against the risk of cultural disruption, dependency, and loss of traditional knowledge. The precautionary principle (Rio Declaration, 1992) favours delay until evidence supports safety.
• Pathway forward: The DM should commission an independent bioethics committee (modelled on the Indian Council of Medical Research’s Ethical Guidelines, 2017), fund controlled trials with external monitors, and ensure tribal representation in decision-making. Only after peer-reviewed safety data should phased, voluntary supplementation begin.

Conclusion: Ethical administration demands that the DM prioritise the tribe’s long-term welfare over short-term gains. By adhering to global medical ethics standards and constitutional safeguards, the DM can transform a potential crisis into a model of participatory, rights-respecting public health governance.

Q3. (a) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had cautioned that employing civil disobedience within a constitutional democracy equates to endorsing 'anarchy'. How should modern democracies navigate the ethical dilemmas posed by civil disobedience movements that aim to promote social justice against policies that may raise genuine concerns? (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) In what ways can an Indian Administrative Officer apply Gandhi's notion of 'trusteeship' to ensure fairness in governance? (Answer in 150 words) 10 (c) Shakespeare in *Henry IV* says, "The arms are fair when the intent of bearing them is just". What ethical implications does this have in governance? (Answer in 150 words) 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “caution” signals that the examiner tests (a) historical-ethical reasoning, (b) constitutional limits of protest, and (c) modern governance tools to reconcile justice with order. A top answer must (1) restate Ambedkar’s warning and unpack its ethical core, (2) contrast it with justified civil disobedience in democracies, and (3) prescribe institutional safeguards. The common mistake is to ignore the constitutional framework and treat civil disobedience as purely moral, thereby missing the examiner’s focus on governance.

Model answer

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s warning equates civil disobedience within constitutional democracy with “anarchy” because it risks normalising extra-constitutional coercion that can erode the rule of law. Modern democracies navigate this ethical dilemma by treating civil disobedience as a last-resort instrument of justice only when three conditions are met: (i) the policy protested is demonstrably unjust, (ii) legal avenues are exhausted, and (iii) the protest remains non-violent and publicly accountable. For example, the 2019–21 farmers’ movement in India invoked Gandhian satyagraha yet stayed within constitutional boundaries by securing Supreme Court-monitored negotiations and avoiding coercion. To balance justice with order, democracies deploy institutional safeguards: statutory mediation boards (e.g., India’s Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals), digital grievance portals (G2C model under e-governance), and transparent protest-permit regimes that convert moral dissent into structured dialogue. These mechanisms convert Ambedkar’s caution into a constructive tension—upholding constitutional morality while allowing ethical dissent to press for reform.

Q4. (a) Citing the serious adverse effects of long-term medication, a doctor convinces the family of a female patient for surgery. This led the patient to reluctantly consent for the surgery, though her original choice was to opt for medication. Explain the concepts of paternalism and beneficence by analysing the doctor's action. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) Efficiency is doing things right, while effectiveness is doing the right thing. How do you strike a balance between the two to enhance productivity? (Answer in 150 words) 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “explain” demands conceptual clarity and application to the given scenario. The examiner is testing your understanding of medical ethics principles—paternalism and beneficence—and your ability to distinguish between them using a real-life case. A top answer must: (1) define both concepts precisely, (2) analyze the doctor’s action through each lens, and (3) conclude with a balanced ethical stance. The common mistake is conflating beneficence with paternalism—beneficence is goal-oriented (doing good), while paternalism is method-oriented (doctor decides for the patient).

Model answer

The doctor’s action exemplifies the ethical tension between paternalism and beneficence in medical decision-making. Paternalism occurs when a professional overrides a patient’s autonomy to act in what they believe is the patient’s best interest. Here, the doctor convinced the family to consent to surgery despite the patient’s original preference for medication, thereby substituting her judgment with his own—classic paternalistic behavior. This approach, though well-intentioned, diminishes the patient’s right to informed consent and self-determination, core to medical ethics.

Conversely, beneficence refers to the obligation to act in the patient’s best interest. The doctor’s decision may stem from beneficence: long-term medication could pose serious adverse effects, and surgery might offer a safer, more sustainable outcome. By prioritizing health benefits over procedural autonomy, the doctor aligns with beneficence. However, beneficence alone does not justify overriding autonomy. A balanced approach would involve shared decision-making—explaining risks, benefits, and alternatives—so the patient’s values and preferences guide the final choice. Thus, while beneficence justifies the goal of improving health, paternalism risks undermining trust and patient rights. Ethical practice requires integrating both: doing what is medically beneficial while respecting the patient’s autonomy.

Q5. (a) Usually schools, working in remote areas, do not fully comply with government regulations. However, if the rules are enforced strictly, it would lead to most schools closing down. How should an administrator strike a balance between enforcement of rules and educational rights of children? (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) In international relations, ethical considerations are often subjugated to the strategic interests of nation-states. Discuss this from an ethical perspective. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word is “discuss,” which tests your ability to weigh competing values and suggest a balanced, ethically defensible course of action. Examiners expect a two-part answer: first, a clear ethical framework to judge the tension between rule enforcement and children’s rights; second, a practical, graduated enforcement strategy with safeguards. The most common mistake is to take an absolutist position—either demanding strict compliance or arguing for blanket waivers—without explaining how to reconcile the conflict.

Model answer

Administrators must balance rule enforcement with the constitutional right to education of every child. An ethical approach begins with the principle of proportionality: rules should be enforced only to the extent necessary to secure the child’s right to learning, not to the point of closure. A graduated strategy is therefore advisable.

Phase 1: Diagnostic Compliance – Conduct a rapid but participatory audit of each school to identify non-compliance that directly harms children (e.g., missing mid-day meals, unsafe structures). Focus resources on these critical gaps first.

Phase 2: Supportive Enforcement – Where deficiencies are administrative rather than structural, issue conditional approvals tied to a six-month improvement plan, backed by district-level mentoring teams and small grants. For example, the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (2018) already uses such flexible funding to revive 12,000 rural schools without closure.

Phase 3: Safeguard Closure – Only schools that fail to meet life-safety or core curricular standards after support should face deregistration, ensuring children are immediately re-enrolled in nearby functional schools under the Right to Education Act, Section 12(1)(c).

This graduated, child-centric enforcement upholds both rule of law and the right to education, converting a zero-sum dilemma into a win-win for governance and society.

Q6. (a) On the request of his Personal Assistant (PA), the District Magistrate (DM) stops the transfer of a schoolteacher who takes private tuition for his daughter diagnosed with learning disability. In this context, discuss the aspects of empathy versus compliance with rules. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) Some moral philosophers argue that spending some of your resources—without significantly affecting your financial stability—to help other people who badly suffer is our moral duty and not merely a matter of charity. Justify this claim by explaining the distinction between duty and charity. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word discuss requires a balanced analysis of empathy versus rule compliance, testing ethical reasoning and administrative integrity. A top answer must (1) define both concepts, (2) apply them to the given scenario using real-world frameworks like the Seven Pillars of Public Life or Kantian duty, and (3) conclude with a principled resolution. The common mistake is taking an extreme stand—either blind empathy or rigid rule-following—without reconciling the tension.

Model answer

Empathy is the capacity to understand and share another’s feelings, while compliance involves adhering to established norms and laws. In the case, the DM’s decision to halt the teacher’s transfer reflects empathy toward the child’s special needs. However, it breaches the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which mandate impartial transfers to ensure administrative fairness and prevent favoritism.

The dilemma mirrors the trolley problem in ethics: saving one life (the child) versus upholding systemic equity. Kantian duty ethics would argue that rules exist to protect the greater good, making compliance a moral duty. Conversely, utilitarian ethics might prioritize the child’s well-being. A balanced resolution lies in procedural empathy—exploring alternative accommodations (e.g., in-house teaching support) while adhering to transparent transfer policies.

Ultimately, empathy must not erode institutional integrity. The DM could direct the education department to create a special-needs support cell, ensuring both compassion and rule adherence.

Q7. (b) Lata, a mother of two children, was admitted to a hospital for acute abdominal pain. Her sister-in-law, Sujatha, accompanied her. Dr. Mansi examined Lata and recommended a diagnostic laparoscopy. Lata's consent was taken to conduct the medical procedure under general anesthesia. During the laparoscopy, Dr. Mansi's team discovered a tumor in Lata's uterus. A closer examination suggested that the tumor could be malignant. One option before Dr. Mansi was to extract a sample for biopsy. In that case, if the tumor was malignant, Lata would have to undergo another surgery for removal of the uterus. An alternative was to remove the uterus immediately. Dr. Mansi had to take a quick decision. As Lata was under general anesthesia, Dr. Mansi explained the situation to Sujatha. Sujatha agreed with Dr. Mansi's recommendations for a hysterectomy, wherein Lata's uterus would be removed to avoid the risk and pain of undergoing another surgery. Dr. Mansi removed Lata's uterus after receiving Sujatha's consent in writing. Lata was informed of this the next day. She was very upset and felt betrayed as she had not consented to the removal of her uterus. Lata complained to the police who tried to convince her that Dr. Mansi had acted with good intention to help a patient. Sujatha was of the same opinion, however Lata was not convinced and decided to approach the court. (a) Discuss the ethical issues involved in this case. (b) Discuss the moral conduct of the doctor in this situation. (Answer in 250 words) 20 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

This case tests your grasp of medical ethics—specifically, informed consent, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and the doctor-patient relationship. The examiner wants a two-part answer: (a) ethical issues and (b) moral conduct of the doctor, each supported by legal principles and real-world precedents. The common mistake is to focus only on consent and ignore the broader ethical principles or to moralize without grounding in law or professional codes.

Model answer

Ethical issues:

• Informed Consent: Lata’s consent was taken for diagnostic laparoscopy, not for hysterectomy. Under ICMR’s National Ethical Guidelines (2023) and Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consent must be specific, informed, and voluntary. Expanding the scope of surgery without explicit consent violates autonomy and right to self-determination.
• Beneficence vs Non-Maleficence: While Dr. Mansi acted to prevent a second surgery, non-maleficence requires avoiding harm. Removing the uterus without Lata’s consent caused psychological harm, violating the principle of do no harm.
• Surrogate Consent and Authority: Sujatha’s consent was not legally valid as she was not Lata’s legally authorized representative under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or NMC Ethics Regulations, 2023. Only a court-appointed guardian or next of kin in a legally recognized hierarchy can consent in such cases.
• Transparency and Communication: Delayed disclosure of the uterus removal breached trust and transparency, core to the doctor-patient relationship. The NMC Code (2023) mandates immediate communication of material changes in treatment.

Moral conduct of the doctor:

• Intent vs Action: While Dr. Mansi’s intent was to prevent further suffering, moral conduct demands adherence to ethical standards. The Hippocratic Oath and NMC Code emphasize patient rights over paternalistic beneficence.
• Professional Accountability: Dr. Mansi failed to uphold professional integrity. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2002 require doctors to obtain informed consent for all procedures, including unplanned extensions.
• Moral Courage: A morally courageous doctor would have paused the surgery, sought Lata’s consent, or obtained a court order under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 226 (writ jurisdiction).

Conclusion:
This case highlights the tension between beneficence and autonomy in medical ethics. While doctors must act in the patient’s best interest, they must do so within the bounds of informed consent and legal frameworks. The court’s intervention will likely reinforce the primacy of patient autonomy and set a precedent for accountability in unplanned surgical extensions. Doctors must adopt a culture of ethical mindfulness, ensuring every decision respects the patient’s right to decide about their own body.

Q8. (b) Ravi is a senior police officer with vast experience in riot control and cyber-policing. Since one year, he has been the Superintendent of Police (SP) of a district with a history of frequent rioting. Last year, Ravi had sought installation of an AI enabled software for predictive policing. This system has been operational for approximately six months. This new system employs advanced algorithms for capturing the biometric data of persons in a crowd and swiftly relating it to a data library. This has enabled the police to identify the persons involved in various crimes. The system has identified an immigrant and low-income neighbourhood as a centre for gang violence and drug trafficking. Aided by this AI analysis, the local police has focused its patrolling, preventive detentions and establishing checkposts. Consequently, public order and law enforcement has visibly improved. Last week, some community leaders, civil rights lawyers and human rights activists visited Ravi's office. They submitted a memorandum that the new system is faulty as it is based on incorrect historical data caused by social biases and discriminatory policing. The memorandum also alleges that the increased surveillance has created a climate of tension amongst residents. This feeling is aggravated by the fact that the residents are not aware of the data noted against their names. – (a) What are the ethical issues including biases involved in the use of AI in data-driven policing? – (b) Place yourself in Ravi's role and discuss the alternatives available. Justify the action that optimises compliance with ethics. (Answer in 250 words) 20 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

This question tests your ability to analyse ethical issues in AI-driven policing and propose ethical, balanced solutions as a senior officer. The examiner looks for: (1) identification of ethical biases and risks in AI systems, (2) evaluation of alternatives in Ravi’s role, and (3) a justified, ethically compliant action plan. A common mistake is to either dismiss the AI system outright or overlook its discriminatory potential—both extremes must be avoided.

Model Answer

Ethical issues in AI-driven policing: The AI system risks embedding historical biases from past discriminatory policing, disproportionately targeting marginalized immigrant and low-income communities. This violates procedural justice and non-discrimination principles. The lack of transparency in algorithmic decision-making (“black box” problem) undermines accountability and erodes public trust. Additionally, privacy violations arise from biometric surveillance without informed consent, while data security risks—as seen in UMANG’s vulnerabilities—threaten sensitive personal information. The absence of grievance redressal mechanisms for affected residents further compounds the ethical breach.

As Ravi, available alternatives include:

• Audit and Correct: Commission an independent ethics review of the AI system’s training data and algorithms, ensuring alignment with constitutional values and anti-discrimination norms.
• Community Engagement: Organize public consultations with affected residents to explain the system’s functioning, disclose data collected, and allow for corrections.
• Hybrid Policing: Combine AI predictions with human oversight to ensure contextual judgment and prevent over-policing.
• Legal Safeguards: Implement strict data retention policies and establish a grievance redressal portal for individuals flagged by the system.

Optimal action: Ravi should prioritize an ethics-first audit while temporarily suspending predictive policing until bias mitigation is verified. This balances immediate public order needs with long-term ethical compliance, ensuring the system serves justice rather than reinforcing systemic inequities.

Q9. 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. (Answer in 250 words) 20 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “discuss” requires a multi-layered analysis: first, identifying the ethical issues; second, evaluating options; third, justifying a recommended course. The examiner tests Seema’s ability to balance moral duty, administrative feasibility, and public welfare. A common mistake is to treat the corruption network in isolation, ignoring the systemic impact on farmers, employees, and local economy.

Model answer

Seema faces a classic integrity versus efficacy dilemma. The ethical issues are threefold: (i) procedural justice—selective approvals violate the principle of equal treatment under law; (ii) institutional integrity—subordinate officials colluding with touts erode public trust in the Collectorate; and (iii) utilitarian harm—backlog delays economic progress, disproportionately affecting small farmers who cannot afford bribes.

Seema has four practical options. First, a quiet, phased purge: transfer or suspend the identified officials and touts, followed by transparent re-processing of applications on a first-come-first-served basis. Second, a public campaign naming the modus operandi and inviting whistle-blowers, which deters future misconduct but risks institutional backlash. Third, a compromise—approve a fixed quota of applications immediately to clear the backlog while launching a discrete investigation; this sacrifices moral clarity for short-term relief. Fourth, outsourcing scrutiny to an independent ombudsman, which reduces internal resistance but may dilute accountability.

The recommended option is the quiet, phased purge. It directly dismantles the network without paralysing operations, upholds the rule of law, and restores trust. Seema should simultaneously digitise the CLU workflow and publish monthly progress reports to pre-empt resistance. This course aligns with the Supreme Court’s Article 142 approach—balancing accountability with systemic stability—and mirrors the UN’s zero-tolerance policy on corruption while avoiding the pitfalls of debt-trap diplomacy seen in Sri Lanka’s port lease.

By acting decisively yet transparently, Seema converts a moral challenge into an administrative reform that benefits the greatest number.

Q10. (b) Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WiFi connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to government regulations would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes. (Answer in 250 words) 20 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word is “Discuss”, which means the examiner wants a balanced analysis of the ethical implications of technology as a gatekeeper in welfare delivery. The question has two parts: (a) options available to Vikas and the balance between fiscal probity and empathy, and (b) the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper. A top answer must structure the response into (1) the dilemma, (2) the available options with real-world examples, and (3) the ethical trade-offs. The most common mistake aspirants make is either ignoring the constitutional dimension (Article 21) or over-relying on anecdotal solutions without linking them to institutional mechanisms.

Model answer

Vikas faces a classic governance dilemma: ensuring fiscal probity in the PDS while upholding the constitutional right to life and dignity of EWS beneficiaries. The biometric authentication system, though designed to plug leakages, inadvertently excludes vulnerable groups—growing children, manual labourers with worn-out fingerprints, and senior citizens—during low-connectivity periods. Strict adherence to the system risks violating Article 21 (right to life with dignity), while discretionary relaxation risks corruption.

Options open to Vikas:

• Tiered Authentication System: Introduce a multi-modal identity verification—biometrics + OTP on Aadhaar-linked mobile + local corroboration by Gram Sabha (as envisaged under Mission Antyodaya). This aligns with the SVAMITVA model of digital mapping and community oversight.
• Offline Biometric Cache: Use devices with offline fingerprint storage that sync when connectivity is restored, as piloted in e-Gram Swaraj platforms for MGNREGA. This reduces exclusion without compromising audit trails.
• Human-in-the-Loop Protocol: Authorize distributors to use secondary IDs (ration cards, voter cards) when biometric failure occurs, but mandate digital capture of the beneficiary’s photograph and geo-tagged transaction—mirroring the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) architecture that reduces leakages while ensuring inclusion.

Ethics of technology as gatekeeper: While biometrics enhance transparency and reduce arbitrariness, they risk creating a digital divide and procedural injustice for marginalized groups. The ethical imperative is to design technology that is inclusive by default—leveraging mobile technology and community participation (Gram Sabha) as watchdogs. The NCBC and NCST can be empowered to audit exclusion cases, ensuring that fiscal discipline does not erode constitutional guarantees.

Conclusion: Vikas must adopt a procedural justice framework—balancing rule-bound fiscal governance with adaptive, participatory safeguards. By embedding technology within institutional checks and community oversight, he can uphold both probity and empathy, setting a replicable model for remote districts.

Q11. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. – (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. – (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics? (Answer in 250 words) 20 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

This question tests your ability to identify ethical dilemmas in a real-life administrative crisis and recommend ethically sound, practical solutions. The directive words “discuss” and “options” require a two-part structure: (a) ethical issues must be analyzed through core ethical principles like neutrality, fairness, and welfare; (b) options must be evaluated for their ethical, administrative, and political feasibility. The common mistake is to jump straight to coercive measures without first addressing trust deficits and restoring institutional credibility.

Model answer

Rajan faces a multi-layered ethical crisis: communal violence, administrative capture, and external interference. The primary ethical issues are impartiality vs. bias, justice and equity in resource allocation, and utilitarian harm minimization versus coercive control.

Ethical issues:

• Functional neutrality: Police and local officials have taken sides, eroding trust. Neutrality is a constitutional duty under Articles 14 and 15.
• Distributive justice: Land and resource claims are uneven; redressal must be transparent and participatory to avoid further alienation.
• Risk of escalation: Opening the highway risks provoking either community if perceived as favouring one side; yet blocking it harms civilians.
• External vulnerability: Neighbouring country may exploit chaos; any heavy-handed response could be framed as oppression, fueling insurgency.

Options for Rajan:

1. Deploy CRPF unilaterally: Restores control quickly but risks perception of militarization and may harden communal lines.
2. Reopen highway without security: Shows goodwill but risks attacks on supply convoys.
3. Initiate joint peace talks with credible elders: Builds trust, addresses grievances, and restores faith in administration. This option aligns with procedural fairness and restorative justice.

Recommended course: Rajan should first open the highway under minimal, visibly neutral CRPF escort to signal commitment to civilian welfare. He should simultaneously constitute an independent peace committee of respected local elders, women leaders, and retired judges to mediate claims and oversee fair resource distribution. This dual track approach protects his non-partisan image, upholds ethical governance, and prevents further polarization.

Q12. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country $A$ and country $B$ have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country $A$ is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country $B$ is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations? (Answer in 250 words) 20 ★★★ SB27—13824 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Discuss” requires a balanced analysis of Ajit’s options and a reasoned choice, while “balance” tests the ability to integrate economic, strategic, and ethical dimensions. Examineers look for a two-part answer: (a) listing and evaluating options with clear criteria (economic, strategic, ethical, treaty compliance), and (b) a framework to reconcile competing interests. The common mistake is to present a purely economic or strategic rationale without explicitly weighing ethical obligations or treaty constraints.

Model answer

Ajit faces a classic public-choice dilemma between two offers that embody different “decision premises.” Factual premises include production capacity, treaty membership, and alliance structures; value premises include ethical commitments to non-proliferation, human security, and national reputation. The two viable options are: (1) accept Country A’s large long-term loan deal with R&D collaboration, and (2) accept Country B’s smaller upfront payment deal with higher proliferation and ethical risks.

Option selection

Country A aligns better with India’s long-term strategic vision of co-developing next-generation systems and strengthening ties with a technologically capable partner. It reduces the risk of diversion to non-state actors, as Country A is not a nuclear-armed state and is not party to any security alliance that might enable proxy use. The R&D collaboration advances India’s defence-indigenisation goals and creates high-skilled employment, satisfying economic and strategic imperatives.

Balancing interests with ethics

Ajit can apply Simon’s “means-end chain” to reconcile objectives. The immediate goal of maximising revenue and employment is a means to the higher end of national security and global standing. Ethical considerations—non-proliferation, human rights, and regional stability—must be embedded in the due diligence process: verify end-use certificates, insist on IAEA safeguards, and embed tracking mechanisms. A conditional offer to Country A, including strict end-use monitoring and a moratorium on re-transfer, transforms the deal into an ethically compliant strategic asset rather than a mere transaction.

By privileging the R&D partnership with Country A under stringent safeguards, Ajit secures economic gains, advances strategic autonomy, and upholds ethical norms, thereby aligning all three dimensions in a single coherent policy choice.

Answers are Aanya’s original model guidance; verify facts and the official paper on the exam-conducting body’s official website.

---

Related — other papers of this exam

• All papers — UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 hub
• Essay (Paper-I) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-I (Paper-II) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-II (Paper-III) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-III (Paper-IV) — questions & model answers