Edward Snowden, a computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, released confidential Government documents to the press about the existence of Government surveillance programmes. According to many legal experts and the US Government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of State secrets as an act of treason. Yet, despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistle blowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”
According to Snowden, the Government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality since more substantive issues of social action and public morality were involved here. Many agreed with Snowden. Few argued that he broke the law and compromised national security, for which he should be held accountable.
Do you agree that Snowden’s actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.
Approach · directive: “do you agree / why or why not / weigh competing values”
What it asks · Argue whether Snowden's disclosure was ethically justified though illegal, weighing privacy, transparency, the whistle-blower's duty, law and national security.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Take a position on whether Snowden's actions were ethically justified though legally prohibited
- Give reasons why or why not
- Weigh the competing values in the case
Open with · The case sets conscience and the public's right to know against legality, secrecy and national security: what is lawful may not be right, and what is right may not be lawful.
Cover
- Values in conflict: the right to privacy and citizens' right to know against the rule of law, national security, oath-bound secrecy and institutional trust.
- For: mass surveillance can harm liberty; whistle-blowing is a duty of conscience when internal channels fail; democracy needs public knowledge; the disclosures sparked public debate and reform in the US.
- Against: he broke the law and his oath; a huge, indiscriminate release may have exposed legitimate intelligence work; he bypassed lawful channels; and one person's choice replaces democratic and judicial processes.
- Conditions for justified whistle-blowing: serious wrongdoing, internal channels tried, only necessary information disclosed, a public-interest motive, and readiness to face the consequences, as in civil disobedience.
- My view: partly defensible; exposing mass surveillance served the public interest, but the scale and manner of the release are questionable; a targeted disclosure through protected channels would have been better.
- Indian context: privacy is a fundamental right (Puttaswamy, 2017), so intrusion must be lawful, necessary and proportionate; the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 shields exposure of corruption, and the Official Secrets Act, 1923 restricts disclosure.
- Way forward: strong oversight of surveillance (judicial authorisation, parliamentary review, transparency) and protected channels for intelligence whistle-blowers, so that neither privacy nor security is sacrificed.
Close with · Snowden exposed a real wrong by a flawed method; the lasting answer is strong oversight of surveillance and protected channels, so that no conscientious official must choose between breaking the law and keeping silent.
Add value (verified)
- Justice S.K. Kaul's opinion in the 2017 privacy ruling, reproduced in the Supreme Court's Aadhaar judgment of 26 September 2018, notes that technology has made surveillance possible in ways that are unimaginable, and refers to Snowden's disclosures. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar), Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, judgment of 26 September 2018 (reproducing S.K. Kaul, J.) ↗“Surveillance is not new, but technology has permitted surveillance in ways that are unimaginable. Edward Snowden shocked the world with his disclosures about global surveillance.”
- Supreme Court, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (24 August 2017): any invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of legality, need (a legitimate state aim) and proportionality. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (privacy), Supreme Court, 24 August 2017 ↗“An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them”
- Supreme Court, PUCL v. Union of India (18 December 1996): telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act is subject to review by a committee of the Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary and Telecommunication Secretary. People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 18 December 1996 — Indian Kanoon ↗“There shall be a Review Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary, Telecommunication at the level of the Central Government.”
- Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963): one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty. Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.], 16 April 1963 — African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania ↗“One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
- After Snowden's leaks, President Obama set up an independent panel (August 2013) whose December 2013 report recommended suspending the mass collection of telephone records. Edward Snowden — Encyclopaedia Britannica ↗“Although U.S. Pres. Barack Obama was critical of Snowden’s methods, in August 2013 he announced the creation of an independent panel to examine the U.S. government’s surveillance practices. That panel’s findings, published in December 2013, recommended that the mass collection of telephone records be suspended”
- Snowden did not return to face trial: after over a month in Moscow's Sheremetyevo transit zone he was granted temporary refugee status by Russia. Edward Snowden — Encyclopaedia Britannica ↗“After having spent more than a month in the Sheremetyevo transit zone, Snowden was granted temporary refugee status by Russia, and he left the airport in the company of a WikiLeaks staffer.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 359 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Snowden's case sets conscience and the public's right to know against legality, secrecy and national security: what is lawful may not be right, and what is right may not be lawful.
Competing values
| Value | Favours disclosure | Favours secrecy |
|---|---|---|
| Liberty | Privacy against mass surveillance | Security against terror |
| Democracy | Public's right to know | Laws made by elected bodies |
| Duty | Conscience | Secrecy duty and rule of law |
Why the act can be called ethical
- Serious wrong: mass surveillance of ordinary citizens threatens liberty and a free society; internal channels offered no realistic remedy.
- Public benefit: President Obama, though critical of Snowden's methods, set up an independent panel, which in December 2013 recommended suspending mass collection of telephone records.
- Conscience: whistle-blowing on grave wrongdoing is a recognised moral duty, not mere disloyalty.
Why it falls short
- Indiscriminate release: he broke the law and his duty of secrecy and released an enormous cache, which may have exposed legitimate intelligence work and endangered people.
- Penalty evaded: Martin Luther King held that one who breaks an unjust law must do so "openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty"; Snowden instead accepted temporary refugee status in Russia.
- Self-appointed judge: he alone decided what the public should know, bypassing democratic and judicial processes.
My position: partly justified
- The aim, exposing mass surveillance, passes the tests of serious wrong, public-interest motive and real benefit; the method fails the tests of minimal disclosure and accountability. A targeted release through protected channels would have served the same end at lower cost.
Indian context and way forward
- Privacy test: after Puttaswamy (2017), any intrusion must satisfy legality, a legitimate state aim and proportionality.
- Oversight gap: PUCL (1996) subjected phone tapping to a Review Committee of senior secretaries. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 (yet to be operationalised) covers corruption, while the Official Secrets Act, 1923 restricts disclosure; intelligence whistle-blowers have no protected channel.
- Reform: judicial authorisation of surveillance, parliamentary oversight and periodic transparency reports would protect security and privacy alike.
Snowden exposed a real wrong by a flawed method. The durable answer is oversight strong enough that no conscientious official must choose between breaking the law and keeping silent.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.