Q18 · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2025 · GS II · 15 marks · 2 min read

← Q17 Q19 →

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has to address the challenges faced by children in the digital era. Examine the existing policies and suggest measures the Commission can initiate to tackle the issue.

Topic: Governance and Policy. Syllabus: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2025 and Governance and Policy.

Revision summary

Harms: grooming, bullying, addictive design, data profiling, deepfakes, influencer labour, and exclusion without devices. Law: POCSO, IT rules, JJ Act, DPDP 2023 parental consent, NEP caution on ed-tech. NCPCR can inquire, recommend and move courts under the 2005 Act. Measures: age-assurance, school device rules with offline equity, POCSO e-evidence protocol, ed-tech data audits, 1098 integration, influencer-work codes, privacy-by-default for minors. The Commission should regulate design, not become a meme censor.

Model answer

Introduction

  • Children now grow up inside platforms: school WhatsApp, free games, algorithmic video, and sexualised or violent content that does not wait for a gatekeeper. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights is a statutory watchdog under the CPCR Act, 2005. It cannot unplug the internet. It can set standards, summon platforms, push ministries, and speak for the child when the parent, the school and the company pass the parcel.

Body

Harms

Cyberbullying and doxxing; POCSO offences facilitated online; grooming; addictive design and sleep loss; body-image and betting ads; deepfakes; data profiling of minors; unpaid child labour in influencer homes; exam-leak and cheat-app ecosystems. The digital divide is also a harm: a child without a device drops out of the only homework channel.

Existing policy

POCSO Act; IT Act (including 67 and intermediary rules); JJ Act; DPDP Act, 2023 (verifiable parental consent for under-18s, ban on tracking/ads targeting children in the strict reading); NCPCR guidelines on digital devices in schools; NEP 2020 on ed-tech caution; National Cyber Crime Portal and 1098; NCERT cyber-safety material; MeitY blocking and I&B OTT codes. UNCRC Optional Protocols inform the Commission’s language. Implementation is the gap: consent is a checkbox, age-gating is weak, and schools fear the parent more than the app.

What NCPCR can initiate

The Commission can inquire, recommend, inspect, and approach the Supreme Court or High Courts. Concrete measures:

  • Age-assurance standards with MeitY — not a single fragile self-declaration — and public grading of platforms the way BIS grades helmets.
  • Model school rules on phones, with no child left offline for homework (assisted labs), issued with DoE and States.
  • POCSO e-procedure training for SJPU and child-welfare committees on taking evidence without re-traumatising, and on section 15 (child pornography storage) applied to ordinary teens with proportion.
  • A children’s data audit of ed-tech and gaming, referred to the Data Protection Board.
  • Helpline integration 1098–cybercrime–NCPCR with quarterly published numbers, not a PDF once a year.
  • Influencer-parent codes on hours and earnings, with the Labour Ministry, so “cute content” is not unregulated work.
  • Push platform default: high privacy, no autoplay, no loot-boxes for minors.
  • Federal coordination with State CPCRs; digital harm is not only Delhi’s.

NCPCR should not become a censor board of memes. It should become the child’s regulator of design, the way a food authority regulates additives.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  H[Digital harms] --> L[POCSO IT DPDP]
  N[NCPCR] --> S[Standards audits schools]
  N --> P[Platforms and MeitY]
  N --> C[Courts if needed]

Conclusion

Digital childhood is a protection gap, not a gadget gap. Law already names POCSO, DPDP and intermediaries. NCPCR’s useful next work is standards, audits, school models and a live helpline — design rules for platforms, not a moral panic.

Quick related

Students also ask

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2025 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks

    Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.

    View answer →

  2. 2025 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks

    Discuss the nature of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. Briefly describe the powers and functions of the Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

    View answer →

  3. 2025 · Q6 · GS II · 10 marks

    Women's social capital complements in advancing empowerment and gender equity. Explain.

    View answer →

  4. 2025 · Q10 · GS II · 10 marks

    "With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism." Elucidate.

    View answer →

  5. 2025 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks

    What are environmental pressure groups? Discuss their role in raising awareness, influencing policies and advocating for environmental protection in India.

    View answer →

  6. 2025 · Q17 · GS II · 15 marks

    "In contemporary development models, decision-making and problem-solving responsibilities are not located close to the source of information and execution defeating the objectives of development." Critically evaluate.

    View answer →

  7. 2024 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks

    "The duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not merely to ensure the legality of expenditure but also its propriety." Comment.

    View answer →

  8. 2024 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks

    Analyse the role of local bodies in providing good governance at local level and bring out the pros and cons of merging the rural local bodies with the urban local bodies.

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Discuss the 'corrupt practices' for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute 'undue influence' and consequently a corrupt practice.

Representation of the People Act

Section 123 RPA lists corrupt practices for election petitions: bribery, undue influence, communal appeal, false statements, booth capturing and related heads. Undue influence is interference with the free exercise of an electoral right, not every unfair gain. ADR and PUCL made asset affidavits part of an informed vote; false disclosure can be litigated. A legislator’s unexplained wealth is primarily a Prevention of Corruption Act and ethics issue. It is not, by itself, undue influence under the 1951 Act unless tied to bribery or intimidation of electors.

Q2 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.

Governance and Policy

Articles 323A and 323B create tribunals for mass specialised disputes; L. Chandra Kumar keeps High Court judicial review. The need is expertise and volume, not ouster of courts. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, abolished several appellate bodies and restated short tenure and a high minimum age. Madras Bar Association cases (2020–21) insisted on CJI-linked selection and real tenure for judicial members. Rationalisation reduced forums; it did not, by itself, produce independent or faster justice.

Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?

Indian Constitution

Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.