(a) "The concept of Just and Unjust is contextual. What was just a year back, may turn out to be unjust in today's context. Changing context should be constantly under scrutiny to prevent miscarriage of justice."

Examine the above statement with sui

Question

(a) "The concept of Just and Unjust is contextual. What was just a year back, may turn out to be unjust in today's context. Changing context should be constantly under scrutiny to prevent miscarriage of justice."

Examine the above statement with suitable examples.

(Answer in 150 words)

(b) "Mindless addiction to Form, ignoring the Substance of the matter, results in rendering of injustice. A perceptive civil servant is one who ignores such literalness and carries out true intent."

Examine the above statement with suitable illustrations.

(Answer in 150 words)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'examine' requires critical investigation of both statements with evidence and balanced assessment. Allocate ~75 words to part (a) on contextual justice and ~75 words to part (b) on form versus substance, with a brief integrated conclusion. Structure: introduce the tension between stability and change in justice for (a); body with examples showing how societal evolution redefines justice; transition to (b) with administrative law principles; illustrate with cases where literal interpretation caused injustice; conclude on the civil servant's role as justice-oriented interpreter.
- For (a): Explanation of how justice is historically and socially constructed, not absolute—e.g., Section 377 decriminalization, triple talaq abolition, or evolving rape laws showing yesterday's 'just' becoming today's 'unjust'
- For (a): The mechanism of scrutiny—judicial review, legislative amendment, public interest litigation—as safeguards against miscarriage when contexts shift
- For (b): Distinction between formal legality and substantive justice; how rigid adherence to procedure defeats legislative intent
- For (b): Administrative law examples—Benami Transactions Act liberal interpretation, Supreme Court's purposive approach in tax cases, or welfare scheme implementation where form-based rejection excluded genuine beneficiaries
- Balanced synthesis: The perceptive civil servant exercises 'guided discretion'—neither arbitrary nor mechanical—anchored in constitutional morality and Article 14's evolving standards

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Demonstrates 'examine' by probing both statements critically—testing validity, acknowledging limits (e.g., contextual justice risks relativism; substance-over-form risks arbitrariness), and synthesizing into coherent administrative ethics framework	Describes both statements accurately but treats them as self-evident truths without critical interrogation or tension-resolution between parts	Misreads 'examine' as mere description; treats (a) and (b) as disconnected observations without showing how they jointly inform administrative discretion
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Accurately deploys legal-philosophical concepts (Hart-Fuller debate, Dworkin's integrity, Article 14's arbitrariness doctrine) and administrative law principles (natural justice, purposive construction) with precision	Covers basic concepts of justice and discretion correctly but lacks theoretical depth or conflates related ideas (e.g., equity with equality)	Factual errors in legal principles; confuses form/substance distinction with ultra vires doctrine; misrepresents constitutional provisions
Structure & flow	20%	4	Seamless integration: (a) establishes evolving standards → (b) shows implementation mechanism → unified conclusion on 'living law' in administration; tight 150-word discipline with no redundancy	Clear separation of parts with adequate transitions but reads as two mini-answers rather than unified examination; minor word imbalance	Disjointed structure; disproportionate allocation (e.g., 100 words on one part); missing or abrupt conclusion; violates word limit significantly
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	Specific, diverse illustrations: for (a)—Navtej Singh Johar (2018) overturning Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013), or juvenile justice age debates; for (b)—Union of India v. Filip Tiago ( purposive construction), or MNREGA/PM-KISAN form-substance conflicts in implementation	Generic references (e.g., 'Section 377 case' without naming; 'some welfare schemes') or repetitive examples across both parts	No concrete examples; hypothetical scenarios only; factually incorrect case citations; examples that don't illustrate the specific tension described
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Original insight: positions the civil servant as 'interpreter of constitutional morality'—balancing predictability (form) and justice (substance) through 'principled flexibility'; anticipates objection (risk of abuse) and counters with accountability mechanisms	Safe summary restating both parts without advancing new synthesis; generic praise for 'balanced approach' without specifying what balance entails	Missing conclusion; abrupt ending; or conclusion that contradicts body; platitudes about 'good governance' without analytical content

Q4

Directive word: Examine

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from General Studies 2024 GS Paper IV