(UPSC Ethics Simplified, a special series under UPSC Essentials by The Indian Express, explores ethical dilemmas through contemporary issues. A recent example is the Digital News Publishers Association’s (DNPA) challenge before the Supreme Court to provisions of India’s data protection framework. The association has raised concerns about their implications for investigative journalism and the public’s right to know. This brings us to a larger ethical question: how should a democracy balance individual privacy with transparency and accountability? The debate offers aspirants an opportunity to examine competing rights and duties through deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics.)The public’s right to know about government policies, institutional functioning and matters affecting society is closely linked to freedom of expression. Accountability also requires those who exercise public power or influence collective well-being to remain subject to scrutiny. In this context, an institution like a free press, for example, facilitates the flow of information essential to democratic governance.However, public interest must be distinguished from public curiosity. It concerns information related to governance, security, justice and the exposure of wrongdoing or matters that could cause harm to society. The ethical challenge lies in determining when accessing or disclosing an individual’s private information is necessary and justified in the public interest, and when it amounts to an unnecessary intrusion into personal life.A deeper examination of this dilemma through different ethical philosophies offers useful perspectives.Deontology: Balancing individual rights and professional dutiesA privacy-focused deontologist, drawing on Kantian ideas, would hold that individuals have a right to control information about themselves as an expression of their autonomy. Since human beings should never be treated merely as means to an end, processing or disclosing personal data without consent may violate their dignity and autonomy. On the other hand, a deontological perspective that emphasises the duties of a free press would argue that informing citizens and exposing injustice are important moral obligations in a democracy. The dilemma, therefore, involves balancing competing duties: respecting individual rights while fulfilling the responsibility to inform the public.Utilitarianism: Weighing public good against individual harmUtilitarianism evaluates this dilemma primarily through its consequences. Investigative reporting that exposes corruption, institutional failures or systemic wrongdoing can produce significant social benefits by strengthening accountability and reducing harm. These benefits may, in certain circumstances, justify a limited intrusion into an individual’s privacy. The principle of the greatest good for the greatest number can therefore support journalistic exemptions when disclosure serves a substantial public interest. However, utilitarianism would also condemn unnecessary intrusion that causes considerable harm without producing meaningful social benefits. The extent of the intrusion, its consequences and the availability of less harmful alternatives must all be considered.Virtue ethics: The role of integrity, courage and practical wisdomWhat about the virtues of the stakeholders involved? Virtue ethics shifts attention from rules or calculations of aggregate benefit to the character and practical wisdom of the individuals involved.A virtuous journalist demonstrates honesty, courage, fairness and temperance: the courage to pursue difficult public-interest stories and the fairness to avoid causing unnecessary harm. Similarly, an effective regulator must balance privacy and transparency without being influenced by state convenience or the self-interest of the media.Story continues below this adFrom an ethical standpoint, the question is whether a legal framework encourages thoughtful, responsible decision-making guided by public interest or merely imposes rigid rules that incentivise excessive caution. The boundary is not determined by a fixed formula but through practical wisdom and sound judgement.Public interest versus public curiosity: Where should the boundary lie?Research on public perceptions also offers insights into this dilemma. David Morrison and Michael Svennevig’s 2007 study, The Defence of Public Interest and the Intrusion of Privacy, introduced the concept of ‘social importance’ as a more operational alternative to the often vaguely defined idea of public interest. The 2009 Reuters Institute report, Privacy, Probity and Public Interest, by Stephen Whittle and Glenda Cooper examined British journalistic practices and observed that people generally regard certain domains, such as gender, health, family life and personal correspondence, as essentially private, while recognising the importance of public-interest journalism in holding power to account. Harold Cross’s 1953 book, The People’s Right to Know, remains a foundational work on transparency and access to information.These perspectives suggest that when information relates to an individual’s private life, has no meaningful connection with public affairs or accountability, and its disclosure would cause significant harm without providing any corresponding public benefit, the individual’s right to privacy should take precedence.On the other hand, privacy may have to yield when information concerns the conduct of public officials or powerful private actors in ways that affect collective welfare, when disclosure is necessary to expose wrongdoing or systemic risks, and when the intrusion is proportionate and accompanied by safeguards such as accuracy, responsible reporting and protection of confidential sources.Story continues below this adThe larger good: Balancing individual dignity and social welfareThe ethical boundary, therefore, does not lie in granting permanent precedence to one right over the other. It lies in ensuring that every intrusion into privacy is justified by a legitimate public interest, is necessary and proportionate, and minimises avoidable harm.For the 20th-century American philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, happiness represents the totum bonum (the complete or whole good), rather than merely the summum bonum (the highest particular good). It is not a fleeting feeling of pleasure or contentment, but the quality of a whole human life, considered in its entirety. This idea offers a useful perspective on the ethical dilemma between privacy and the public’s right to know. Neither the journalist’s pursuit of information nor the regulator’s protection of personal data should be viewed in isolation. Both must be guided by a larger concern for human dignity, social welfare and the well-being of society. Whether it is an investigative journalist exposing wrongdoing or a regulator balancing competing rights, ethical wisdom lies in looking beyond immediate objectives and considering the larger good.(The writer is the author of ‘Being Good’, ‘Aaiye, Insaan Banaen’, ‘Kyon’ and ‘Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness’. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to SAARC countries, UPSC, Central Bureau of Investigation( CBI),National Judicial Academy, ATI, RAKNPA, Haryana Institute of Public Administration, ISA MountAbu, National Centre for Good Governance,Competition Commission of India (CCI), etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (concepts and caselets) weekly.)Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.Story continues below this adStay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on UPSC section of The Indian Express on Instagram and X.For your queries and suggestions write at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.comPREVIOUS ARTICLES ON UPSC ETHICS SIMPLIFIED:IAS vs state civil services: Does power justify rudeness? An ethics case study on professional behaviourWhat makes a good journalist? Philosophers’ lessons that hold true for civil servants tooStory continues below this adWhat Rs 700 crore Delhi medical scam teaches about probity, bioethicsWhat ethical questions does Delhi’s Satya Niketan tragedy raise?Gen Z and the ethics of communicationIAS Tukaram Mundhe | Beyond the officer, study the ethical issuesAs Divya Mittal resigns from IAS, 3 ethical questions on public serviceCan fear of punishment create an ethical society?Story continues below this adCJP protest: Why responses to protests are an ethics case studyRailway linen theft : A Case Study in everyday ethics