2023 · GS Paper 4 · Q12 · 20 marks

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.

In short

Social media both enabled the cyberbullying and fake video and offered the officer a rebuttal, but naming minor perpetrators turned defence into a counter-mob. Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 bars disclosing children's identities, so a factual statement without names was the better course.

Model answer

Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026

Introduction
A victim's parent, provoked by a viral fake video, joins the trial by social media he deplores. The ethics lie in how each side used the platform.
(a) Ethical Issues in the Use of Social Media
•

Cyberbullying

Calling an 11-year-old "stunted" and "frog" in a class WhatsApp group attacks his dignity and mental health.

•

Misinformation

The fake "physical bullying" video delivers a public verdict before facts are heard.

•

Children's privacy

Puttaswamy (2017) [case] made privacy fundamental, and the DPDP Act, 2023 demands parental consent for children's data.

•

Faceless harm

Shares spread harm while no one owns it, a Diffusion of Responsibility.

(b) Pros and Cons of Using Social Media to Counter the Fake Propaganda
•

Pro, same audience

A rebuttal reaches those who saw the lie, and silence may read as guilt.

•

Pro, awareness

It warns other parents about cyberbullying.

•

Con, naming minors

Exposing child perpetrators breaches the spirit of Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

•

Con, conduct rules

Rule 19 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 requires reporting such vindication to the authority.

•

Con, escalation

It overrides the son's plea and bypasses the cyber cell and IT Rules, 2021 [scheme] grievance officers.

Justification:
Aristotle's Golden Mean: a factual rebuttal that shields children lies between silence and retaliation.
Conclusion
Defending the truth was right; naming children was not. Restraint and due process protect the son, the office and the children alike.

This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.

Hand-drawn diagram: Defending Truth vs Child Dignity. Defending Truth vs Child Dignity. Venn diagram: Defending Truth, Children's Dignity; overlap: Facts stated, no minor named
Diagram: Defending Truth vs Child Dignity

Practise this question

  1. 1Get the answer sheet

    Sized for this question.

  2. 2Write your answer

    Timed, by hand.

  3. 3Get it marked

    Your score and what to fix.

Share this questionWhatsAppTelegramXLinkedIn

This chapter in the exam

Emerging Domain Dilemmas4 questions

Asked in 3 of 14 sittings since 2013

2013
–
2014
–
2015
–
2016
–
2017
–
2018
1
2019
–
2020
–
2021
–
2022
–
2023
1
2024
2
2025
–
2026
–

All 4 questions, sorted by sub-topic, with model answers and practice.

Question from the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2023 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.

Ghissu

OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·