एक बाढ़-प्रवण राज्य में कई क्षेत्रों में विनाशकारी बाढ़ आई है, जिसके कारण व्यापक मानवीय संकट उत्पन्न हो गया है। चल रहे बचाव कार्यों के बीच, सोशल मीडिया पर ऐसे दावे किए जा रहे हैं कि कुछ तहसीलदारों के लिए राहत प्रभावों की जानकारी भारत किया जा रहा है। (a) प्रभावित प्रभावी समीक्षा संक्षत से निपटाए में इशिता द्वारा सामना की जाने वाली नैतिक दुविधाओं की पहचान कीजिए। (b) आपातकाल की स्वतंत्रता, सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था और राजनीति मेल किए आधार लगा सकते हैं, जिसके लिए एक पत्नी नीति लागू स्थापित की जानी चाहिए? (c) प्राकृतिक आपदाओं के दौरान भ्रम की रोकथाम के लिए क्या कदम उठाए जा सकते हैं? (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

A devastating flood has struck regions of a flood-prone state, leading to humanitarian distress. Amid ongoing rescue operations, social media is flooded with claims that relief efforts are being deliberately delayed for certain communities. These posts go viral, harming communal tensions and eroding public trust in disaster response agencies.

Ishita, a senior officer in the State Information Department, conducts an investigation and finds that most of these claims are either unsubstantiated or manipulated. However, she faces a complex ethical dilemma: seizing the social media outrage as an opportunity to criticize the ruling party, calling for a judicial inquiry. Activists are now attempting to turn removing these posts could be seen as a violation of free speech. Further complicating the matter is High-ranking government officials instruct Ishita to refrain from taking action, fearing that any intervention might be perceived as an attempt to suppress dissent.

Ishita is deeply concerned that unchecked misinformation could escalate communal tensions and undermine the credibility of the administration. However, intervening too aggressively could trigger accusations of censorship and political bias, placing her in a difficult ethical position.

Key Stakeholders:

① Ishita

② State and Central government

③ Information Commission

④ Activists

⑤ Opposition leaders

⑥ Social Media companies/users

Ethical Dilemmas:

① Duty vs Instruction: Asked to not intervene but required to ensure information availability

② Clicks vs Facts: Sensational news may be untrue but generates uproar and engagement

③ Action vs Fact-checking: Easier for opposition to get support by criticizing instead of speaking facts

④ Credibility vs Non-engagement: Staying quiet can help matter blow over but harms credibility of govt.

⑤ Inclusion vs Safety: Diverse opinion should be encouraged but can endanger public safety by riots etc.

⑥ Free speech vs Fact-checking: Intervening may endanger hight to free speech of citizens.

Ishita's should prioritize transparency and disclose while not taking any extreme steps:

① Carry out through investigation to examine veracity of claims

② Compile and disseminate information to general public

③ Issue public statements staking the facts and proof

④ Hold open sessions for debate and allow opposing views to express their issues

⑤ Conduct or joint-committee investigation into the matter to ensure correct and convincing dispute resolution

⑥ Maintain an online portal to continually update civil society with relevant facts and statistics.

This will ensure accountable action and transparent disclosure while not infringing on rights of freedom of expression.

② Earliest possible vesiculation of communications to allow exchange of information.

③ Constitution of fact-checking boards and centralized news dissemination by PIB.

④ Clear guidelines of conduct and verification for social media to fight fake news.

⑤ Proper statutory guidelines for maintaining free-speech and federal news under acts like IT Act

Ishita should always balance individual freedom and institutional integrity to promote consensus-building.

The facts and proof

④ Hold open sessions for debate and allow opposing views to express their issues

⑤ Conduct or joint-committee investigation into the matter to ensure correct and convincing dispute resolution

⑥ Maintain an online portal to continually update civil society with relevant facts and statistics.

This will ensure accountable action and transparent disclosure while not infringing on rights of freedom of expression.