UPSC Mains 2018 GS4 Q12 — Case Study: Whistleblowing
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. (250 words)
Question Decoded — examiner's intent
- Directive verbs
- Do you agreeMake an argumentweighing
- Scope keywords
- confidential Government documentsEspionage Act of 1917moral obligation to actviolation of privacysocial action and public moralitynational security
- Implicit sub-parts
- Analysis of the conflict between Legal Positivism (law is supreme) vs. Natural Law/Morality (ethics is supreme).
- Assessment of the 'Public Interest' vs. 'National Security' trade-off in the digital age.
- Critical evaluation of whether Snowden's method (uncontrolled leak) was the only ethical alternative to formal channels.
- Application of ethical frameworks like Utilitarianism (greatest good) vs. Deontology (duty to obey law/contract).
- Common pitfalls
- Focusing too much on the biography of Edward Snowden or the technicalities of the NSA rather than ethical deliberation.
- Taking a one-sided emotional stance without acknowledging the legitimate state concern of 'national security' and 'precedent for anarchy'.
- Failing to define the 'competing values' explicitly, such as Transparency vs. Secrecy or Individual Privacy vs. Collective Security.
- Neglecting to mention the 'means-ends' debate—even if the end (privacy) was good, were the means (leaking) justified?
- Dimensions required
- Ethical (Deontology vs. Consequentialism)Legal (Rule of Law vs. Civil Disobedience)Political (State Sovereignty vs. Citizen Rights)Professional (Contractual Obligations vs. Whistleblowing)
- Marks allocation hint
Spend approximately 50 words defining the ethical dilemma. Allocate 100 words to weigh the competing values (Privacy/Transparency vs. Law/Security). Use the remaining 100 words to justify your final stand by applying ethical theories and concluding with the necessity of institutionalized whistleblowing mechanisms.
Unlock the full analysis for this question
You've seen the question and its examiner-intent decoding. Subscribers also get:
- 🔗 Similar Previous Year Questions — cross-year, cross-paper matches so you study the topic, not the question
- 📚 Source Map — verified citations from Laxmikanth, NCERT, PRS, Yojana, Economic Survey, Spectrum
- 🌱 How this topic is evolving — current-affairs bridge anchored to live TARS news clustering
- 🧭 Examiner's Pattern — how the topic has been framed across every year UPSC has tested it
- ✍️ Answer Skeleton — a structured outline (intro → body → conclusion) you can flesh out
- 🎯 AI evaluation — write your answer, get rubric-based scoring from gs-eval
Or browse 132+ free preview questions across all years and papers — the first 3 questions of every paper are unlocked.
Ready to practice?
Subscribers can attempt this question in 250 words and get an instant, rubric-based evaluation showing where they stand.
Subscribe to evaluate your answer →