GS 4 · Practice archive

GS Paper 4 practice questions for UPSC Mains 2026.

Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude — theory plus case studies.

20 Qs / 250 marks270 questionsModel outlines included

GS Paper 4 · Tips & tricks

GS-4 — values, dilemmas, and decisions — not lectures on ethics

Pair every ethical concept with a public-service application.Talk about integrity — but anchor it to a civil servant scenario or a real official action (T.N. Seshan, E. Sreedharan, Ashok Khemka).
Case studies need a 5-step structure.Identify the dilemma, list stakeholders, lay out 3 options with consequences, choose one with justification, and add a follow-up safeguard.
Use thinkers sparingly and accurately.One Aristotle, one Gandhi, one Ambedkar in an answer is enough — and quote what they actually said, not a paraphrase.
Don't moralise. Decide.The examiner wants a decision and the reasoning. Sitting on the fence loses marks even when the case is morally ambiguous.
For aptitude questions, behaviour matters more than feelings.When asked what you would do, focus on observable actions — communication, consultation, escalation — not internal states.

Q.115 marks · 250w 14 min Easy

You are the Director of a State Drug Procurement Corporation. A shortage of paediatric anti-cancer chemotherapy drugs has reduced supply to 60 per cent of demand for the next three months. A foreign-pharma representative offers a ‘compassionate’ free supply for one quarter — on condition that you place a confidential MoU signalling future preferred-supplier status. The State Public Health Director, two paediatric oncologists and a parent-advocacy group are split. The drug-controller has cleared the imported batch. The Cabinet meets in 10 days to discuss budget reallocation. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Conflict of interest — pharma compassion offer

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: immediate paediatric lives vs procurement integrity and future-market distortion.

2. Stakeholders: child patients and families, oncologists, pharma firm, future suppliers, Public Health Director, Cabinet, CAG.

3. Options: (a) accept the MoU silently — children get drugs, future tender compromised; (b) refuse the offer entirely — principled but children suffer; (c) accept the free batch under a transparent emergency-purchase protocol with no preferred-supplier clause, and parallel-track emergency tender + Cabinet ratification — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — accept via GFR Rule 170 emergency provision with no future commitment; convene an emergency procurement committee; brief CAG in advance.

5. Safeguard: publish offer letter and MoU draft on portal; involve drug-controller for QC; file note recording reasons; future-tender insulated by a written declaration of non-preference.

Key points

GFR 2017 Rule 170 — emergency-purchase provision
DoPT Conflict of Interest Guidelines 2014
Bardhan principle of beneficial-but-bounded gifts (PCA 1988 Sec 7)
Kant's universalisability test — would all suppliers be allowed the same?
Right to life of the child (Article 21) — immediate weight
Future-tender capture — long-term harm to market competition

Open full model answer →

Q.215 marks · 250w 14 min Easy

You are the Director of a Central PSU’s R&D centre. A foreign trade delegation, accompanied by your administrative Ministry’s Joint Secretary, is visiting a sensitive prototype lab. During the demonstration, the visiting senior diplomat photographs a circuit-board you know contains a non-public design feature funded by DRDO. The visiting team’s protocol officer asks you to permit the photograph as a ‘goodwill gesture’ to advance an MoU. The DRDO liaison is not present. The JS gives an oral nod. The MoU could secure a ₹2,800 crore export order. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Foreign delegation / diplomatic protocol

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: diplomatic courtesy and commercial opportunity vs national-security obligations.

2. Stakeholders: DRDO, MEA, MoU partner, future export market, JS, citizens of India.

3. Options: (a) permit the photograph — security breach; (b) refuse rudely — diplomatic damage; (c) politely intervene, request deletion under the standard visiting-lab protocol, defer the MoU clause for a controlled photo-session approved by DRDO Liaison, brief MEA — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — invoke the lab's pre-agreed Visitor Photography Protocol, ensure on-the-spot deletion in the diplomat's presence, follow up with a written record to MEA-MoD-Ministry.

5. Safeguard: CCTV preserved; protocol officer's written acknowledgment; note-sheet recording JS oral order; alternative controlled photo session arranged.

Key points

Official Secrets Act 1923 — defence/prohibited place obligations
MEA's Norms of Diplomatic Protocol — visiting-lab clearances
DRDO Visitor Protocol — accompanied access only
Nolan principles — integrity, leadership
AIS Conduct Rules 1968 Rule 3(3) — written instruction for oral order
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 — diplomatic privilege limits

Open full model answer →

Q.315 marks · 250w 14 min Easy

You are the PIO of a Public University. A student-led RTI seeks the personal-leave record of a Vice Chancellor whose attendance has been allegedly irregular. The data is in the establishment file; releasing it requires touching personal-information clauses under Section 8(1)(j). The VC asks you informally not to share. The CIC’s recent rulings favour disclosure where larger public interest is shown. Media is following the story. The Chancellor’s office has asked for a status update. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Information asymmetry / RTI — privacy vs accountability

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: personal-privacy of a public-office holder vs accountability and public interest.

2. Stakeholders: students, VC, Chancellor, faculty, media, future RTI applicants.

3. Options: (a) deny under Section 8(1)(j) — protects VC, fails public-interest test; (b) release in full — privacy violation; (c) issue Section 11 third-party notice to VC, decide under the public-interest override of Section 8(1)(j), disclose only attendance summary not personal reasons — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — Section 11 hearing; release summary; redact medical reasons; reasoned written order.

5. Safeguard: note-sheet of reasoning; appeal-rights to both parties; consistent precedent reference; copy to CIC.

Key points

RTI Act 2005 Section 8(1)(j) — personal information with public-interest override
RTI Act 2005 Section 11 — third-party procedure
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande 2012 SC — narrow personal-info reading
Public office holder has reduced expectation of privacy on public duties
Nolan principles — openness, accountability
Puttaswamy 2017 — privacy as fundamental right, balanced with public interest

Open full model answer →