General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically evaluate

Q9

The Supreme Court has banned mining in the Aravalli Hills to stop degradation of the forest cover and to maintain ecological balance. However, the stone mining was still prevalent in the border district of the affected State with connivance of certain corrupt forest officials and politicians. Young and dynamic SP who was recently posted in the affected district promised to himself to stop this menace. In one of his surprise checks with his team, he found loaded truck with stone trying to escape the mining area. He tried to stop the truck but the truck driver overrun the police officer, killing him on the spot and thereafter managed to flee. Police filed FIR but no breakthrough was achieved in the case for almost three months. Ashok who was the Investigative Journalist working with leading TV channel, suo moto started investigating the case. Within one month, Ashok got breakthrough by interacting with local people, stone mining mafia and government officials. He prepared his investigative story and presented to the CMD of the TV channel. He exposed in his investigative report the complete nexus of stone mafia working with blessing of corrupt police and civil officials and politicians. The politician who was involved in the mafia was no one else but local MLA who was considered to be very close to the Chief Minister. After going through the investigative report, the CMD advised Ashok to drop the idea of making the story public through electronic media. He informed that the local MLA was not only the relative of the owner of the TV channel but also had unofficially 20 percent share in the channel. The CMD further informed Ashok that his further promotion and hike in pay will be taken care of in addition the soft loan of ₹ 10 lakhs which he has taken from the TV channel for his son's chronic disease will be suitably adjusted if he hands over the investigative report to him. (a) What are the options available with Ashok to cope up with the situation? (b) Critically evaluate/examine each of the options identified by Ashok. (c) What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Ashok? (d) Which of the options, do you think, would be the most appropriate for Ashok to adopt and why? (e) In the above scenario, what type of training would you suggest for police officers posted to such districts where stone mining illegal activities are rampant?

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

उच्चतम न्यायालय ने वन आवरण के क्षरण को रोकने और पारिस्थितिक संतुलन बनाए रखने के लिए अरावली पहाड़ियों में खनन पर प्रतिबंध लगा दिया है। हालांकि, कुछ भ्रष्ट वन अधिकारियों और राजनेताओं की मिलीभगत से प्रभावित राज्य के सीमावर्ती जिले में पत्थर-खनन फिर भी प्रचलित था। हाल ही में प्रभावित जिले में तैनात युवा और सक्रिय एस० पी० ने इस खतरे को रोकने के लिए खुद से वादा किया था। अपनी टीम के साथ अचानक जाँच में, उन्होंने खनन क्षेत्र से बचने की कोशिश कर रहा पत्थर से भरा ट्रक पाया। उसने इस ट्रक को रोकने की कोशिश की लेकिन ट्रक चालक ने पुलिस अधिकारी को कुचल दिया, जिससे उसकी मौके पर ही मौत हो गई और वह इसके बाद वहाँ से भागने में सफल रहा। पुलिस ने प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट (एफ० आई० आर०) दर्ज की लेकिन करीब तीन महीने तक मामले में कोई सफलता हासिल नहीं हुई। अशोक, जो प्रमुख टी० वी० चैनल के साथ काम कर रहे खोजी पत्रकार थे, ने स्वतः संज्ञान से मामले की जाँच शुरू की। एक महीने में ही अशोक को स्थानीय लोगों, पत्थर-खनन माफिया और सरकारी अधिकारियों से बातचीत कर सफलता मिली। उन्होंने अपनी खोजी रिपोर्ट तैयार की और टी० वी० चैनल के सी० एम० डी० के सामने पेश की। उन्होंने अपनी जाँच रिपोर्ट में भ्रष्ट पुलिस और सिविल अधिकारियों तथा राजनेताओं के आशीर्वाद से काम करने वाले पत्थर माफिया की पूरी गठजोड़ का खुलासा किया। माफिया में शामिल राजनेता कोई और नहीं बल्कि स्थानीय विधायक थे जो मुख्यमंत्री के बेहद करीबी माने जाते हैं। जाँच रिपोर्ट देखने के बाद सी० एम० डी० ने अशोक को सलाह दी कि वह इलेक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया के माध्यम से रिपोर्ट को सार्वजनिक करने का विचार छोड़ दे। उन्होंने सूचित किया कि स्थानीय विधायक न केवल टी० वी० चैनल के मालिक के रिश्तेदार थे बल्कि अनौपचारिक रूप से चैनल के साथ 20 प्रतिशत के हिस्सेदार भी हैं। सी० एम० डी० ने अशोक को आगे बताया कि अगर वह जाँच रिपोर्ट उन्हें सौंप दे, तो उनके बेटे की पुरानी बीमारी के लिए टी० वी० चैनल से उधार लिए गए 10 लाख रुपये के सॉफ्ट लोन के अलावा उनकी आगे की पदोन्नति और वेतन में बढ़ोतरी का ध्यान रखा जाएगा। (a) इस स्थिति से निपटने के लिए अशोक के पास क्या विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं? (b) अशोक द्वारा चिह्नित किए गए प्रत्येक विकल्प का समालोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन/परीक्षण कीजिए। (c) अशोक को किन नैतिक दुविधाओं का सामना करना पड़ रहा है? (d) आपको क्या लगता है कि अशोक के लिए किस विकल्प को अपनाना सबसे उपयुक्त होगा और क्यों? (e) उपर्युक्त परिदृश्य में, आप ऐसे जिले में तैनात पुलिस अधिकारियों के लिए किस प्रकार के प्रशिक्षण का सुझाव देंगे जहाँ पत्थर-खनन की अवैध गतिविधियाँ प्रचलित हैं?

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically evaluate

This question asks you to critically evaluate. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically evaluate' in parts (b) and (d) demands balanced examination with judgment. Structure: brief context (20 words) → enumerate 4-5 options for (a) (~50 words) → critically evaluate each option for (b) (~80 words) → identify 3-4 ethical dilemmas for (c) (~40 words) → justify best option with reasoning for (d) (~40 words) → suggest 2-3 training modules for (e) (~20 words). Ensure inter-linkages between parts, especially how dilemmas inform option selection.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Options include—(i) comply with CMD and suppress story, (ii) leak to rival media/whistleblower platforms, (iii) approach statutory bodies (NBSA, PCI, CBI), (iv) publish through own social media/blog, (v) resign and publish independently, (vi) negotiate conditional publication with CMD
  • For (b): Critical evaluation must weigh—professional survival vs. public interest, legal risks (defamation, breach of contract), effectiveness of each option, personal/family consequences, long-term journalistic credibility
  • For (c): Ethical dilemmas—loyalty to employer vs. duty to public; personal financial security (son's treatment, loan) vs. professional integrity; safety of sources vs. exposure of truth; career advancement vs. moral courage; utilitarian calculus (harm to family vs. harm to society)
  • For (d): Most appropriate option justified through—reference to Press Council of India norms, Supreme Court rulings on freedom of speech (Romesh Thappar, Indian Express), comparative advantage of statutory route over vigilante disclosure, protection mechanisms available
  • For (e): Training modules—(i) ethical decision-making under pressure (case studies of SP's sacrifice), (ii) intelligence-led policing and source protection, (iii) inter-agency coordination (forest, mining, police), (iv) use of technology for evidence gathering, (v) stress management and family support systems

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Demonstrates precise grasp of 'critically evaluate' by weighing pros/cons of each option with explicit criteria; integrates 'enumerate' for (a), 'identify' for (c), and 'justify' for (d) without conflating directives; maintains evaluative stance throughout rather than merely describingAddresses all sub-parts but treats (b) and (d) as descriptive rather than evaluative; some confusion between listing options and analyzing them; directive handling mechanical without integration across partsMisinterprets directives—describes when evaluation needed, or evaluates when enumeration required; misses sub-part (e) entirely or treats it as generic suggestion without police-specific context
Content depth & accuracy20%4Options for (a) cover full spectrum from capitulation to resistance; ethical dilemmas in (c) explicitly reference competing values (deontological vs. consequentialist); training in (e) addresses institutional, technical, and psychological dimensions specific to mining-mafia contextCovers standard options (suppress vs. publish) but misses nuanced alternatives; dilemmas stated without philosophical grounding; training suggestions generic (honesty, integrity) rather than operationally specificSuperficial treatment—options limited to binary choices; dilemmas conflated with options; training suggestions irrelevant (community policing, gender sensitization) or absent
Structure & flow20%4Clear visual demarcation of (a) through (e); logical progression where evaluation in (b) builds upon enumeration in (a), and justified choice in (d) synthesizes preceding analysis; effective signposting and within-word-limit discipline per sub-partAll parts present but poorly demarcated or unevenly weighted (e.g., 150 words on (a), 20 on others); some logical gaps between dilemma identification and option selectionUnstructured narrative mixing all parts; severe imbalance (ignores (e) or gives 5-word answers); exceeds word limit significantly or falls far short; no paragraph breaks or sub-headings
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites relevant precedents—Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case (journalist's role), Jessica Lal murder (witness protection), Supreme Court's Aravalli protection orders (T.N. Godavarman); references PCI norms, Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014, or comparable international examples (Panama Papers, Pegasus)Mentions generic ethical codes (journalistic ethics, police ethics) without specific legal/statutory backing; one relevant case cited but not applied to contextNo examples, case-law, or institutional references; or cites irrelevant examples (RTI Act without connection to media, environmental laws without enforcement context)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Conclusion in (d) explicitly balances competing ethical frameworks (Kantian duty vs. utilitarian harm minimization) and institutional realism; recognizes no option is cost-free; suggests systemic reforms (media ownership transparency, police welfare) beyond individual choice; demonstrates mature understanding of democratic accountabilitySelects best option with plausible reasoning but relies on assertion ('this is best') rather than ethical framework; conclusion summarizes without elevating analysis; no systemic perspectiveNo justified conclusion in (d)—either avoids choice or asserts without reasoning; or conclusion contradicts preceding analysis; ends with platitude ('truth always prevails') without engagement with structural constraints

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV