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 Medium

You are the District Election Officer (the DM) in a constituency holding a Lok Sabha by-election. The Election Commission has issued the Model Code of Conduct. The local ruling-party MP, who is contesting again, requests urgent release of ₹47 crore from the District Mineral Foundation for ‘pre-monsoon repair’ of school roofs. Technically, MCC permits ongoing-scheme expenditure. The CEO of DMFT says the file is procedurally clean. The Returning Officer is uneasy because pamphlets advertising the repair list have appeared bearing the MP’s photograph. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Pressure from political bosses — DMFT release during MCC

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: legitimate scheme expenditure vs MCC and level-playing-field for opposition.

2. Stakeholders: school children (need), ECI (oversight), other candidates (fairness), MP (incumbent), CEO-DMFT.

3. Options: (a) release funds as cleared — risks MCC breach; (b) refuse outright — denies genuine need; (c) defer the release until polling day, seek ECI's prior written clearance under MCC paragraph VII, instruct removal of pamphlets, refer to police if violation continues — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — defer with written reasons; reference RP Act 1951 Section 123 (corrupt practices); file MCC violation report with the CEO/ECI.

5. Safeguard: document the pamphlet evidence; communicate decision to the MP in writing copy ECI; preserve note-sheet; remain available for ECI direction.

Key points

Model Code of Conduct, Election Commission of India — Part VII on party in power
RP Act 1951 Section 123 — corrupt practices
Mines and Minerals (DRTM) Act 2015 + DMFT rules — beneficiary primacy
ECI 1968 Symbols Order — level playing field
Section 4 RTI 2005 — proactive disclosure
S. Subramaniam Balaji 2013 — boundary of welfare vs freebie

Open full model answer →

Q.215 marks · 250w 14 min Medium

You are an Under-Secretary in a Ministry. A senior journalist files an RTI seeking the file noting on a controversial policy decision two years old. The file contains a Minister’s hand-written ‘I disagree’ note that was later over-written by the Secretary. The CPIO consults you; she is inclined to deny under Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers and deliberations. You note that the decision is past, no Cabinet status applies, and a similar disclosure was made in another Ministry last year. Your Section Officer says ‘precedent is risky’. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Information asymmetry / RTI disclosure

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: protecting deliberative space vs citizen's right to know and integrity of past decisions.

2. Stakeholders: citizens, journalist (information seeker), Minister (privacy), Secretary, CPIO, CIC.

3. Options: (a) deny under Section 8(1)(i) — convenient but legally weak post-decision; (b) disclose without filtering — privacy risk; (c) advise CPIO to disclose with severability under Section 10 — redact only ongoing-deliberation items, release file noting, post on portal under Section 4 — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — release after severability; cite prior CIC order in support; preserve the original file.

5. Safeguard: note-sheet reasoning; appeal-path information to applicant; preserve all internal-consultation records.

Key points

RTI Act 2005 Section 8 exemptions and Section 10 severability
RTI Act 2005 Section 4 — proactive disclosure
Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011 SC — RTI promotes accountability
Subhash Chandra Agrawal v PMO — file-noting disclosure jurisprudence
Nolan principles — openness and honesty
CIC orders consistency vs each-case discretion

Open full model answer →

Q.315 marks · 250w 14 min Medium

You are the Vice Chancellor of a Central University in a remote north-eastern state. A junior faculty member shows you peer-reviewed evidence that the Dean of Research has been quietly approving in-house grants without external review, including ₹2.1 crore to her own husband’s start-up incubated on campus. The Dean is also the President of the local university teachers’ association and politically well-connected. The faculty’s complaint is verbal; she fears reprisal. The next Executive Council meets in 21 days; UGC’s annual audit is in 60 days. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Whistleblowing dilemma — campus conflict of interest

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: protect the complainant and institutional integrity vs personal-relations risk and political backlash.

2. Stakeholders: students, faculty whistleblower, Dean, Dean's family-firm, UGC, EC, taxpayers.

3. Options: (a) suppress the complaint — corrupt; (b) suspend the Dean without inquiry — natural-justice breach; (c) refer to a confidential fact-finding committee under University Ordinance, seek the Dean's recusal from research-grant approvals pending inquiry, protect complainant identity, brief UGC — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — fact-finding committee with two external members; interim recusal; written non-retaliation undertaking.

5. Safeguard: WBPA-style anonymity; document audit trail; recuse from EC vote; intimate Chancellor + UGC.

Key points

Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 — anonymity-preservation principle
UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity) Regulations 2018
Natural justice — audi alteram partem
Conflict of Interest guidelines DoPT 2014
PCA 1988 Section 7 — undue advantage
Tolkappiyar pattern of academic-integrity violations across central universities

Open full model answer →

Q.415 marks · 250w 14 min Medium

You are the SP of a district. The senior-most political party in the state alliance has its convention here next week. The state IGP has informally instructed you to ‘visibly slow down’ an ongoing investigation into a financial fraud allegedly involving the party’s local treasurer, until the convention concludes. The investigation is at the charge-sheet stage and a Special Court has fixed a hearing in 9 days. A junior IO involved is willing to ‘hold the file’. The complainant is a small-investor collective whose savings of ₹17 crore are at stake. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Subtopic: Section B · Case Study · Pressure from political bosses — investigation slow-down

Show model answer outline

1. Dilemma: obedience to hierarchy vs duty to judicial process and victims.

2. Stakeholders: defrauded investors, accused, party, IGP, special court, IO.

3. Options: (a) instruct IO to 'hold the file' — defrauds court and victims; (b) ignore IGP and proceed loudly — confrontational; (c) proceed with the charge-sheet on the court-fixed date, decline to act on oral instruction, record a written request to IGP for any policy direction in writing — hard right.

4. Decision: Option (c) — file charge-sheet on schedule, respond to IGP in writing seeking written instructions, copy DGP and State Vigilance.

5. Safeguard: note-sheet trail; routine PRAGATI dashboard reporting; preserve communication logs; protect IO from punitive transfer.

Key points

Prakash Singh v UoI 2006 — Police Establishment Board, fixed tenure
AIS (Conduct) Rules 1968 Rule 3(3) — written-instruction requirement
Vineet Narain 1997 — investigation insulation from political direction
PCA 1988 Section 7 — investigation cannot be obstructed
Standard Operating Procedure on oral orders — DoPT 2014
Karnataka Police Act 2003 — independence of investigation

Open full model answer →