GS4 · UPSC Mains
The misinformation is being amplified by local self-help group leaders and panchayat members, some of whom were earlier earning commissions from routing applications under other schemes. Their resistance is subtle but coordinated: warnings in meetings, group messages, and even refusals to distribute enrollment forms. Your field staff are demoralized. Your Public Relations Officer says that publicly debunking the fake clip may backfire, citing past cases where denial reinforced suspicion. The state nodal officer unofficially suggests "letting it die down" until the next quarter's outreach cycle. Meanwhile, your internal report identifies 3 specific officials who were lax in countering early misinformation–and a fourth who may be linked to its spread, though no direct evidence exists. You must now decide whether to publicly confront the campaign, initiate disciplinary action, and risk administrative friction–or focus on quiet, grassroots re-engagement to rebuild trust over time. Questions: (a) What are the core ethical and administrative challenges in this case? (b) How should public officials balance truth-telling, public trust, and communication strategy in the face of organised misinformation? (c) What are the ethical risks of choosing silence or passive correction in such contexts? (d) What would be your approach to restoring trust in the scheme while upholding transparency and institutional integrity? (Answer in 250 words)
GS4 · Aptitude & foundational values for civil service — integrity, impartiality, non-partisanship, objectivity, dedication, empathy, tolerance & compassion
| Topper | Rank | Source | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aman Jhanwar | — | NextIAS | p.49 |
| Sugandha Gupta | — | NextIAS | p.50 |