You hold a responsible position in a ministry in the government. One day in the morning you received a call from the school of your 11-year-old son that you are required to come and meet the Principal. You proceed to the school and find your son in the Principal’s office. The Principal informs you that your son had been found wandering aimlessly in the grounds during the time classes were in progress. The class teacher further informs you that your son has lately become a loner and did not respond to questions in the class, he had also been unable to perform well in the football trials held recently. You bring your son back from the school and in the evening, you along with your wife try to find out the reasons for your son’s changed behaviour. After repeated cajoling, your son shares that some children had been making fun of him in the class as well as in the WhatsApp group of the students by calling him stunted, duh and a frog. He tells you the names of a few children who are the main culprits but pleads with you to let the matter rest.
After a few days, during a sporting event, where you and your wife have gone to watch your son play, one of your colleague’s son shows you a video in which students have caricatured your son. Further, he also points out to the perpetrators who were sitting in the stands. You purposefully walk past them with your son and go home. Next day, you find on social media, a video denigrating you, your son and even your wife, stating that you engaged in physical bullying of children on the sports field. The video became viral on social media. Your friends and colleagues began calling you to find out the details. One of your juniors advised you to make a counter video giving the background and explaining that nothing had happened on the field. You, in turn posted a video which you have captured during the sporting event, identifying the likely perpetrators who were responsible for your son’s predicament. You have also narrated what has actually happened in the field and made attempts to bring out the adverse effects of the misuse of social media.
(a) Based on the above case study, discuss the ethical issues involved in the use of social media. (b) Discuss the pros and cons of using social media by you to put across the facts to counter the fake propaganda against your family.
Approach · directive: “discuss”
What it asks · (a) Bring out the ethical issues in how social media was misused and used in this case; (b) weigh a public counter-video against other ways of responding.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- (a) Discuss the ethical issues in the use of social media shown by the case
- (b) Discuss the pros and cons of my using social media to counter the fake propaganda against my family
Open with · Mill held that power may rightfully be used against anyone's will only to prevent harm to others; posts that bully a child or defame a family cross that line, and so can a reply that exposes other children.
Cover
- Stakeholders: my son, the children who bullied him, my family, the school, colleagues and the public, and me as a public servant.
- (a) Issues: cyberbullying and body-shaming of a child, spread of a fake and defamatory video, harm to a child's mental health, and viral judgement without verification.
- (a) Also: the privacy and dignity of minors, the presumption of innocence, and the restraint expected of a public servant.
- (b) Pros of a counter-video: quick correction before the falsehood hardens, it reaches the same audience, protects reputation and family dignity, and uses genuine evidence.
- (b) Cons: it amplifies the falsehood, escalates the conflict, exposes my son to more attention against his wish, and naming likely perpetrators who are minors invites legal and moral blame.
- (b) Better course: preserve evidence, report the fake video to the platform and cyber cell or police, inform the school's anti-bullying committee, and issue a brief factual clarification naming no child.
- Support my son with counselling and reassurance, involve the school and parents, follow the conduct rules on public statements, and keep my department informed.
Close with · Answer a falsehood in a measured, lawful way that protects every child, including those who did wrong, as Aristotle's test for right anger demands.
Add value (verified)
- Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 bars any media report from disclosing particulars that could identify a child in conflict with law, a child in need of care and protection, or a child victim or witness. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting advisory of 10 October 2018 on section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the POCSO Act ↗“shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime”
- Rule 19(2) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964: a government servant may vindicate his private character or private acts, but must submit a report on such action to the prescribed authority. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (updated to 31.12.2014) — Department of Personnel and Training ↗“(2) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prohibit a Government servant from vindicating his private character or any act done by him in his private capacity and where any action for vindicating his private character or any act done by him in private capacity is taken, the Government servant shall submit a report to the prescribed authority regarding such action.”
- IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: intermediaries must appoint a Grievance Officer who acknowledges a complaint within 24 hours and resolves it within 15 days. Government notifies Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 — PIB, Ministry of Electronics & IT, 25 February 2021 ↗“Intermediaries shall appoint a Grievance Officer to deal with such complaints andshare the name and contact details of such officer. Grievance Officer shall acknowledge the complaint within twenty four hours and resolve it within fifteen days from its receipt.”
- The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), part of I4C, lets the public report all types of cyber-crime, with special focus on crimes against women and children. Cyber Crimes — PIB, Ministry of Home Affairs (Parliament reply) ↗“The ‘National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal’ ( https://cybercrime.gov.in ) has been launched, as a part of the I4C, to enable public to report incidents pertaining to all types of cyber-crimes, with special focus on cyber-crimes against women and children.”
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II: anyone can get angry, but to do so to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive and in the right way is not easy. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II (tr. W.D. Ross) — The Internet Classics Archive, MIT ↗“any one can get angry- that is easy- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 376 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Mill held that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". Posts that bully a child or defame a family cross that line; a reply that exposes other children can cross it too.
Stakeholders
- People involved: my son; the children who bullied him and their parents; my wife and I; the school; my department; and the platforms.
(a) Ethical issues in the use of social media
- Cyberbullying: body-shaming an 11-year-old on a class WhatsApp group attacks his dignity and mental health, while classmates watch silently.
- Fake, defamatory video: thousands shared it unverified; the mob replaced due process.
- Exposing minors: my counter-video identified likely perpetrators who are children, against the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which bars the media from identifying a child in conflict with law, and against my son's plea.
- Restraint of a public servant: the CCS (Conduct) Rules, for instance, let a central civil servant vindicate his private character but require a report to the prescribed authority (Rule 19).
- Platform duty: the IT Rules, 2021 require a Grievance Officer to acknowledge complaints within 24 hours and resolve them within 15 days.
(b) Pros and cons of my using social media to counter the propaganda
| Aspect | Counter-video | Formal route |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Fast, same audience | Slower |
| Children | Exposes minors | Protects identities |
| Image | Looks like retaliation | Neutral, documented |
- Pros: it corrects the falsehood before it hardens, reaches the same audience with genuine footage and protects my family's reputation.
- Cons: it amplifies the fake, turns a children's quarrel into a public feud, exposes my son against his wish, and invites a story of a powerful officer targeting children.
Better course
- Preserve and report: save the evidence and report the video to the platform and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, which focuses on crimes against women and children.
- Clarify and heal: issue a brief factual statement naming no child, involve the school and the parents, arrange counselling for my son and inform my department.
Aristotle's test for anger, "to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time", fits here: answer a falsehood in a measured, lawful way that protects every child, including those who did wrong.
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.