Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

The rise of white-collar terrorism, marked by the radicalisation of highly educated youth, poses new challenges to policing and internal security. As Deputy Commissioner of Police (Cyber & Internal Security), Ananya Rao confronts a complex ethical dilemma where the imperatives of national security conflict with civil liberties, privacy, and freedom of speech. Her decisions sit at the intersection of legality, morality, and public accountability.

Body :

A.Key Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Ananya

• Privacy vs National Security: Targeted surveillance on tech professionals and students risks infringing the Right to Privacy, yet failure to act may endanger public safety.
• Freedom of Expression vs Prevention of Extremism: While academic debate is legitimate, the circulation of extremist ideologies under its guise raises the dilemma of distinguishing dissent from radical propaganda.
• Rule of Law vs Public and Political Pressure: Civil society groups oppose strong action, and educational institutions lobby against scandal, pressuring Ananya to compromise on legal and moral duties.
• Preventive Policing vs Presumption of Innocence: Initiating UAPA-based action could protect society but may be criticised as excessive if evidence is still emerging.
• Professional Integrity vs Administrative Prudence: Firm enforcement may invite political backlash, while inaction violates her ethical duty to prevent harm.

B. Conflicting Values and Ethical Principles

• Utilitarian Ethics vs Rights-Based Ethics: A utilitarian approach emphasises public safety and prevention of large-scale harm, while a rights-based view stresses safeguarding civil liberties even for those under suspicion.
• Accountability vs Discretion: She must be answerable for both action and inaction while exercising discretion responsibly within legal limits.
• Courage of Conviction vs Emotional Intelligence: Her integrity demands decisive action, yet emotional intelligence is required to understand societal fears, engage stakeholders, and avoid alienating youth.
• Justice vs Compassion: Hard punitive measures may deter crime, but compassion may be necessary where misguided or manipulated youth are involved.

C. Evaluation of Possible Courses of Action

• Option 1: Immediate Crackdown (Surveillance + UAPA Action)
  • Pros: Disrupts terror networks early, aligns with national security imperatives.
  • Cons: High public backlash, potential legal challenges, risk of rights violations.
• Option 2: Calibrated, Evidence-Based Action
  • Pros: Balances liberty and security; legally defensible; targets only high-risk actors.
  • Cons: Slower and resource-intensive; threats may still evolve.
• Option 3: Avoiding Action Due to Public Pressure
  • Pros: Avoids controversy temporarily.
  • Cons: Ethically weak; increases threat; violates duty to protect citizens.
• Option 4: Preventive + Collaborative Approach
  • Engage academic institutions, parents, psychologists, and cyber experts; create deradicalisation programmes; combine soft intervention with targeted enforcement.
    • Pros: Builds legitimacy, reduces radicalisation, promotes long-term resilience.
    • Cons: Requires sustained coordination and time.

D. Most Ethical and Administratively Prudent Course of Action

• The most balanced approach is a calibrated, lawful, and transparent strategy combining:
  • Judicially authorised, targeted surveillance on high-risk actors.
  • Strict UAPA action only where strong digital and financial evidence exists.
  • Deradicalisation and counselling programmes for borderline youth.
  • Collaboration with universities to address ideological infiltration without suppressing academic freedom.
  • Public awareness campaigns to counter extremist narratives.
  • Maintaining documentation, legal transparency, and constitutional safeguards to withstand scrutiny.
• This approach upholds proportionality, rule of law, fairness, public interest, and the Constitutional duty of the police, while protecting democratic freedoms.

Conclusion:

Ananya’s dilemma highlights the need to balance citizen rights with collective security in an era of sophisticated, ideology-driven cyber terrorism. A measured, evidence-based, and ethically grounded approach allows her to protect national security without compromising constitutional values. This aligns with the core principles of responsible policing, human dignity, and ethical governance.